This is intercepted.

I'm Jeremy Skayhill coming to you from New York City and this is part five of an intercepted special American mythology the presidency of Donald Trump.

This president, whoever it may be, hopefully it'll be me, is going to replace two, three, couldn't even be four.

I mean, could even be four Supreme Court judges. I mean, perhaps more than anyone. I didn't heard the scenario could be five.

While campaigning for president in 2016, Donald Trump vowed that if he won the presidency, he would appoint judges to the courts who were staunchly anti-abortion and pro-gun.

Trump repeatedly asserted that he wanted judges who were approved by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. And once elected, he kept that promise.

Federalist Society vetted very carefully, great scholars, pro-life, very, very fine people, second amendment.

And, you know, I think a very good list. We have a list of 20 judges and all been vetted by Federalist Society.

The Federalist Society has been around since 1982 and was forged by conservative law school students at Yale and the University of Chicago.

It subscribes to a judicial philosophy of originalism and textualism, meaning it's the role of judges to only interpret the Constitution in its plain text, no more or less than those who originally wrote and ratified it.

UC Berkeley Law School Dean Irwin Chemerinsky once wrote, quote,

Never in American history, thankfully, have a majority of the justices accepted originalism. If that were to happen, there would be a radical change in constitutional law. No longer would the Bill of Rights apply to state and local governments. No longer would there be protection of rights not mentioned in the text of the Constitution, such as the right to travel, freedom of association, and the right to privacy.

In 2017, White House Council Don McGann delivered keynote remarks at the Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention in Washington, D.C.

The greatest threat to the rule of law in our modern society is the ever-expanding regulatory state. And the most effective work against that threat is a strong judiciary.

The Trump administration shared in the view, now dominating the Federalist Society, of applying the philosophy of originalism to government regulations.

The benefits of the modern administrative state was really not constructed until the 20th century on the misguided notion that independent experts rather than our elected representatives are best suited to govern the nation's affairs.

In the view of McGann and his cohort, federal agencies have become an unaccountable out of control administrative state. In other words, federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency or Centers for Disease Control or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration don't have the authority to interpret what are often ambiguous statutes unless Congress explicitly mandates it.

I made a promise to the American people. If I were elected president, I would find the very best judge in the country for the Supreme Court.

I promised to select someone who respects our laws and is representative of our Constitution and who loves our Constitution and someone who will interpret them as written.

The assertion here being a commitment to individual liberty and limited government. But in practice, it looks more like a libertarian interpretation of the Constitution.

This commitment is what reportedly shot Neil Gorsuch to the top of the Federalist Society's list of prospective nominees to replace the Arch Conservative Justice, Anthony Scalia.

Gorsuch gained initial attention after publishing two judicial opinions that staked out radical, originalist positions seeking to undermine federal agencies.

...