"I am one of a small number of judges -- a small number of anybody, judges, professors, lawyers -- who are known as originalists," Antonin Scalia said during a speech in March of 2004. "Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people".
Clarence Thomas has also been known as a key originalist along within the same lines of Justice Scalia. One well noted author Henry Mark Holzer in a book about Clarence Thomas examined his judicial opinions and said that a consensus of his opinions are originalist.
Holzer describes Thomas as a “judicial conservative’s conservative,” in which his jurisprudence is based on his commitment "to a originalist interpretation of the Constitution and federal statues, to the Constitution’s structural pillars of federalism and separation of powers, and to judicial restraint”.
Differences with strict constructionalist
Similar to a originalist or a textualist, a strict constructionist is one who sticks to the meaning of the words in the Constitution as they were used at the time of its drafting without reading too much into them.