that are written in it. i think that is what you will see in the supreme court nominee. sean: leonard leo, i think what jay said is on the money. kennedy did not have consistent judicial philosophy. you have a four reliable liberal justices on the court right now. and i mean, we know how they are going to vote. in 9 out of 10 99% of the cases. this is important because it s been at least 25 times that anthony kennedy has sided with the four liberal justices on the court. this is a game changer. what s transformative about this is that the president is committed to nominating people to the court who have a very firm judicial philosophy. people who understand that the constitution needs to be interpreted the way the framers meant it to be. individuals who are courageous and that interpretive approach, and are not going to flinch. we saw that in neil gorsuch and i think that the president
nominates another individual like neil gorsuch, what we will see is widespread public support and i would say also probably bipartisan support in the senate to some extent as we did with justice gorsuch. sean: leonard leo, you may be more optimistic than me. i just look look at the democrc party today and i i think basically, unless you are a saint, and you ve never written on the law at all, if you have any judicial philosophy, we know what they want to do. and that is bork somebody. i want to go deeper, jay come into the idea. this is important for people to understand. the president does not believe in judicial activism, he believes in separation of powers, believes in coequal branches of government, does not believe in citing foreign law. they believe in the constitution. he believes that justices should not legislate from the bench, that is for the legislative body to do. caller: that s right. here you mentioned the foreign law application. i litigate in courts in other
had a judicial philosophy that he seemed to do it here too, like justice thomas or justice scalia or justice alito. now with president trump poised to nominate what he has said he will do in the campaign, a strict originalist, to replace a very unproductive but kennedy, democrats are now sharpening their spears, just like they did back in 1987. let s go down memory lane. before reagan nominated anthony kennedy to the supreme court, he did tap somebody who was a judicial genius. he tapped a strict constitutional originalist. his name was george robert ford. hell-bent on preventing them from becoming a supreme court justice, senate democrats engaged in a disgusting smear campaign which culminated on the senate floor without white allies from senator ted kennedy. watch how low they can go. take a look. his america is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks
supreme court cases in front of anthony kennedy for three decades. about 80% of the time, he ruled in our favor, about 20% of the time, he did not. he was always a professional, but the fact is, when i disagree with him, or he d disagree with me, he s a justice, his votes counted more than minded. but at the end of the day, more times than not, he went with us. but there was not a consistent what we would call conservative philosophy in the mold of, say, justice gorsuch or antonin scalia, justice alito justice alito, justice thomas. the president now has an opportunity to nominate a justice in that judicial philosophy that the president talked about and continues to talk about, and that is putting someone on the court that has that, what i would call, and originalist, supreme court philosophy, constitutional philosophy, a loss to of a loss to become a constitutional conservative. you can call it a lot of different phrases but someone that is use the constitution ths