The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 8.10 I'M GLAD MY MOM DIED... Why Ariana Grande Jennette McCurdy Backlash Misses The Point & Today's News

Starting point is 00:00:00 I'm glad my mom died. You need to leave! Is a statement that's generating a lot of reactions right now. So Jeanette McCurdy is in the news right now. You might know her from shows like iCarly and Sam and Cat on Nickelodeon. Because she just released a new memoir titled, I'm glad my mom died, where she recounts her life as a child star, as well as her relationship with her mother.

Starting point is 00:00:17 And online, we've seen her receiving backlash from some people for one of two reasons. One, because of what she says around Ariana Grande. And the other, because she named the book this. With a number of people saying, oh my god, that's so horrible and disgusting, that's your mother. So obviously that sparked my interest, and I want to talk about it today, because while I have not finished it, I've started the book, and uh, yeah. As a child of abuse and trauma, I think we need to normalize being vocal and open about us resenting or fucking hating our parents. Right, so in the book, McCurdy talks about her mother who had breast cancer, saying, you know, I always wanted to please her, make her happy.

Starting point is 00:00:46 But when she died in 2013, in hindsight, she realized, oh my God, my mother abused me in so many ways. Describing situations where her mom pushed and forced her into acting at a young age, despite Jeanette hating it. With her mom always framing the situation as, oh my God, you're so lucky that I'm letting you do this.

Starting point is 00:01:00 I wished I could have done this as a kid, but my parents didn't let me. Continuing to push herself as the hero of this situation, even though Jeanette would just be sobbing because she couldn't quit, and so she tried to convince her that, no, you love it. With McCurdy seemingly having just a chaotic home life. Early on in the book, describing the situation where she just wanted to get out of that house, her mom is slapping her dad, at one point she grabs a knife, it's just chaos. That's just a small bit in addition to the other disturbing allegations, including the fact that Jeanette says that even when she was eight years old,

Starting point is 00:01:27 her mother insisted on wiping her behind after going to the bathroom because she didn't trust Jeanette to do it correctly, and that her mother would shower her and give her breast and front butt exams to check for cancer, which Jeanette dreaded, and she always felt a huge wave of relief when they were done. A lot of the book also dealing with Jeanette struggling with an eating disorder through much of her life, starting at just the age of 11 when her mom first encouraged her to limit food intake, telling Jeanette, if you really want to know how to stay small, there's this secret you can do. It's called calorie restriction. And so when she was a kid, she would just eat a thousand or even just 500 calories in a day in an effort to just

Starting point is 00:01:55 stay small. And she fully embraced this because she felt like, oh, this is helping me bond and impress my mom. So much so that the book literally opens with the mom being told she could die in 48 hours. She's unresponsive. And members of the family are saying big and exciting things about, Mom, I just, I want you to see this. Once everyone leaves the room, Jeanette's like, Mom, I'm the thinnest I've ever been. Hopes that it's going to impress her mother so much, all of a sudden she would become conscious.

Starting point is 00:02:17 Once again, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to her mom, because there's so much more in this book, especially about how her mother weaponized her illness, her emotions, and pretty much everything against Jeanette. So to the people like, oh my god, I can't believe the title, fucking read the book. Your outrage made me buy the book, and I'm just like, I'm on her side. Also, you have the Nickelodeon of it all, with Jeanette specifically outlining things she was subject to at the hands of who she calls the creator. And though they're never named, many

Starting point is 00:02:39 believe that it refers to Dan Schneider, who was the showrunner and producer of iCarly and Sam and Cat, who notably has long been rumored to be abusive and predatory. With Jeanette saying she felt sexualized early on, noting that for one scene in iCarly, she had to wear a swimsuit, and she felt more comfortable in a one-piece, but the creator wanted her in a bikini. And saying that once she was 18, the creator pressured her to drink alcohol. At one point, massaging her shoulders, she was too scared to tell him not to touch her. And then as far as the Ariana Grande aspect of this, she detailed resentment that she felt towards Ariana Grande on the set of Sam & her. And then as far as the Ariana Grande aspect of this, she detailed resentment that she felt towards Ariana Grande on the set of Sam and Cat.

Starting point is 00:03:06 Saying there that because Ariana's career was taking off, she was always missing filming to perform or promote her album. Leaving it all down to Jeanette to keep the sitcom alive. Feeling that Ariana came for money and privilege and she was just struggling. And saying she understood why Ariana was gone, but she'd understand why production allowed it

Starting point is 00:03:19 because she was not given the same flexibility on iCarly and was forced to turn down film roles because they conflicted with shooting. With Jeanette going on to say this kind of continued this whole idea of making other people happy, and being a good sport, despite what it made her feel. And so with this, you had some Ariana fans going online, trying to paint Jeanette as being petty, saying she needs to get a grip. But then, you had others horrified by this response,

Starting point is 00:03:38 saying Jeanette never even really blames Ariana directly, and that with all the context, she has every right to be upset and frustrated. And for me personally, hearing McCurdy out, it doesn't feel like it's anything actually about Ariana Grande herself. To me this just seems like a young girl who's being physically and emotionally abused by other people. It was just a case of wrong place wrong time and had nothing actually to do with Ariana Grande. It was more like oh my god I fucking wish I could do that. Why can't I just do that instead of eat shit for every day of my life? I really do agree with people saying if you're making it more about Ariana Grande

Starting point is 00:04:05 than all the other abuse, you need to get your fucking priorities checked. You're a stan? Awesome. Maybe don't let that get in the way of supporting someone through physical and emotional abuse. But then finally, once again, to close out, if you have a problem with this title,

Starting point is 00:04:16 it's her story to tell and her title to put out there. Based off of what she said on Good Morning America, I don't think she has any concerns that she made that the title. This title is, I get that it's attention grabbing, but it's also something that I mean sincerely. I'm not saying it at all in a flippant way. I think that anybody who has experienced parental abuse understands this title. And I think anybody who has a sense of humor understands this title.

Starting point is 00:04:38 What do you think your mom would say about it? I wouldn't have written the book if my mom were alive. There'd be, I would still have my identity dictated by her. And you had tons of people supporting this, and as you can probably tell, I'm among them. I've had a lot of therapy to not actively hate my mom, which I know for people that had great moms sounds horrific to say. If you are emotionally or physically abused by a parent, don't let fucking other people go, Oh my god, I can't believe you feel that way. Your feelings are valid, they are justified, and you don't owe decency to someone that was never decent to you. But that's

Starting point is 00:05:09 where I'll leave it. Of course, feel free to share your thoughts since I shared mine. Because we got immediately sidetracked, I'll say it here. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show. Buckle up, make sure you're subscribed because I'm going to be giving $10,000 split across 10 beautiful bastards who are subscribed to this channel, and let's just keep this show going. And then we got to talk about, there's a big debate about this right now. Depending on your point of view, the story we're going to talk about is either a refreshing, heartwarming, faith and humanity restoring type of deal, or some weak ass bullshit. And we're going to go through it together and see where you land on it. So it all starts with a clip from a Little League game. The kid in the blue gets hit harder than I would hit Ethan Klein if he put on his big boy pants and boxed me, which is saying something because this morning I did three whole push-ups.

Starting point is 00:05:54 I didn't even have to get on my knees. That's what she said. But, you know, in this world, we only get to decide how we react to things that happen. And how did we see 12-year-old Isaiah Jarvis react? Well, we see him take first base. He looks right at the pitcher, and he marches straight over to that other kid and gives him a hug. Hey. Hey, bud. Look at me.

Starting point is 00:06:13 Look at me. You're all right. Amazing. Look at me. With many calling this now viral clip a moment of extraordinary sportsmanship, there's a standing ovation, there's tears, people coming together. I'm gonna get emotional. What the fuck?

Starting point is 00:06:23 What makes this even more remarkable is that this went down at the Southwest Regional Championship, which is the game that determines who goes to the Little League World Series. So the stakes almost as high as they can be. But you had Isaiah putting all that aside and saying, when I was at first base, that's when I saw him crying. I wanted to go over there and spread God's love and make sure that he's okay and make sure that he knows that I'm okay and that I'll be okay.

Starting point is 00:06:41 And ultimately what we ended up seeing was the pitcher's team, Texas East, winning the game. Isaiah's saying he'll be rooting for him in the World Series later this month. But the story doesn't end there because there are a number of people that think this is not the heartwarming story that others do. With, for example, the likes of Dave Portnoy saying, this isn't good sportsmanship, it's dumb.

Starting point is 00:06:56 You got this kid on the ropes and he's rattled. Trip to Williamsport on the line. You can play patty cakes after. As far as the pitcher goes, that's your plate. You had a number of people agreeing with Portnoy, replying with some variation of the kid was totally fine. That pitcher who started crying is soft. He played to win the game. This is a perfect example of how soft America has become. The boys from World War II would be ashamed. To which we saw a number of people respond with

Starting point is 00:07:15 things like, please share your experience on the battlefield and how combat really is compared to 12-year-old kids playing ball. Yeah, what would those men who were forced into an unthinkable and horrifying and deadly situation think of a 12 year old not storming the mound? In a baseball game? We're talking about children here. Based on their reaction, you know the pitcher didn't mean to beam him in the head. And Isaiah reacts in a way that shows that he has more emotional maturity than I fucking do. Because yeah, I am a competitive dickhead.

Starting point is 00:07:39 I'm going to try and do whatever in that situation I can do for an advantage. But that's why I respect what Isaiah did here. Like, what he did isn't participation trophy bullshit. It's unexpected decency and thoughtfulness. But also, the whole situation feels weird because now it's become the situation of like, well, if I was that 12-year-old child, here's what I would have done. I don't know. With all that said, what are your thoughts on this situation? But from that, I want to take a second to thank the fantastic sponsor of today's show, Cuts Clothing. And if y'all don't know about Cuts Clothing, you're missing out on the most comfortable and versatile wardrobe essentials out there. Cuts has wrinkle-free, pre-shrunk shirts that retain shape over time, and I must have washed my tees 50 plus times and they still look new. No stretched out collars. And Cuts lets you choose your perfect cut with options for a split hem, elongated, or the classic curved hem,

Starting point is 00:08:20 which is my personal favorite. It's like how it looks for my body. They also have comfortable great fitting joggers, sweats, jackets, and more. Which, I will say, I've been finding myself, like, living in their joggers. You know, Cuts tees are extremely soft and come in a mix of long sleeves, short sleeves, pull-offs, and color options for you to choose from. Or you want a sharp look for a night out with the boys, date night with your significant other, or a trusted travel outfit.

Starting point is 00:08:38 Cuts has you covered. Just buy one of them and you'll see what I mean. Y'all, if not for you, it makes a phenomenal gift for any guy in your life. So go to cutsclothing.com slash phil or click that link down below and use code philad to get 15% off your first order today. And then we absolutely need to talk about this story out of Nebraska for a few reasons,

Starting point is 00:08:54 starting with the fact that depending on where you're looking online, it's being reported in a drastically different way. Some weird exclusions, others misleading, and I think it's important that we talk about the situation, one, for what it is specifically, and two, what it could mean for other people that are in slightly different situations but in a post-war world. So at the core of this story of pro-choice and privacy activists jointly worried after court documents revealed that Facebook turned over DMs between a mother and

Starting point is 00:09:17 a daughter that were later used to charge them over an illegal abortion. With a state charging Jessica Burgess with three felonies and her 17 year old daughter Celeste with one felony and two misdemeanors. Claiming that they went online and bought Pregnot, which is an abortion-inducing medication. So with that, some key things. That medication is supposed to be used in the first trimester to induce abortion, but in this case, it was taken at 28 weeks, resulting in a stillborn fetus. Which puts the entire thing in violation of Nebraska law, which is a 20-week post-fertilization abortion ban. Prosecutors also allege that the abortion was not done by a physician, which is required by state law.

Starting point is 00:09:44 And that the fetus's body was illegally disposed of with the help of a 22-year-old man who is also now facing a misdemeanor charge. Also, notably with this story, it allegedly took place before Roe was overturned, and in fact, Nebraska's laws have not changed since then. With people also noting that at 28-week, abortion is pushing the limit in most states, and in fact, could be illegal in even some extremely liberal ones, such as California. But regardless of the timing of this specific, abortion-y of pro-choice and privacy activists beyond worried about the social media implications of all this. They've been warning people that their DMs, location data,

Starting point is 00:10:10 and even period app tracking information can be used against them, and this situation seems to reinforce that fear. Especially when you consider that in the case of the Burgesses, prosecutors are heavily relying on messages that the two sent to each other about inducing this abortion and hiding the body, including potentially burning it. So the situation has led to calls for people to get off of Meta's apps, which include Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp,

Starting point is 00:10:27 over the fears that any communications about abortion will be used against women. However, here, Meta has responded to the outlets highlighting this story, saying that they were just complying with a legal and valid warrant, and that nothing in the valid warrants we received from local law enforcement in early June, prior to the Supreme Court decision, mentioned abortion. The warrants concerned charges related to a criminal investigation in court documents indicate that police at the time were investigating the case of a stillborn baby who was burned and buried, not a decision to have an abortion. The warrants concerned charges related to a criminal investigation and court documents indicate that police at the time were investigating the case of a stillborn baby who was burned and buried, not a decision to have an abortion. But that statement didn't

Starting point is 00:10:50 really stop the criticism from the people that had a problem with this, with many claiming that the company should have vetted the warrant more and read between the lines, arguing that it's not exactly a huge leap in logic to assume the case of a stillborn involving a 17-year-old is linked to abortion. However, you have people saying it's not like Meta can just ignore a warrant, so it seems like they're between a rock and a hard place. But you have people pushing back on that saying Facebook could just not collect the data in the first place or turn on end to end encryption for things like Facebook Messenger by default, meaning the police would have to get direct access to the Burgess's phones to see their messages, which notably did eventually happen

Starting point is 00:11:17 anyways, but only after using data that they received from Facebook to justify the warrant. But now with all that said, of course, I'm going to pass the question off to you. But I think it's important that we think about the situation in two ways. One, what are your thoughts about this 17 year old that had an abortion at 28 weeks and everything that transpired here? But also two, regardless of your opinion here, do you potentially see this story as a canary

Starting point is 00:11:35 in a coal mine for other people in less extreme situations moving forward in a post-Roe world? And I'd love to know your thoughts on those specific situations. If you're worried about your privacy in general, here's what I will say right now. If you for some reason have to use the Facebook Messenger app,

Starting point is 00:11:47 you should turn on end-to-end encryption. And if you're using WhatsApp, it should be on by default. But also understand, this is not an end-all, be-all solution. And then, let's talk about the man who once said, So there are five people taking the Fifth Amendment, like you see on the mob, right? If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment? Has now repeatedly pled the Fifth himself today.

Starting point is 00:12:05 Because while Donald Trump just missed a visit from the FBI down in Florida, he had some stuff to do in New York. With the state attorney general there, Letitia James, bringing a nearly three-year civil investigation into the former president's business practices to a climax today. This over allegations that the Trump organization illegally inflated and deflated the value of its assets on paper to get better treatments from lenders, insurers, and tax authorities.

Starting point is 00:12:23 It's like I said, Trump appeared for a scheduled deposition this morning in front of James and her team of lawyers so he could give sworn testimony and no Trump fireworks, instead just pleading his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself and refuse to answer any questions. We learned that Trump himself was aware of the irony of having said things in the past, but now pleading the Fifth because in a statement he said, I once asked if you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment? Now I know the answer to that although it appears even though he wouldn't speak under oath He could not resist posting on social media while literally there writing at the very plush beautiful and expensive AG's office nice working conditions As people are being murdered all over New York

Starting point is 00:12:55 She spends her time and effort on trying to get Trump and here's what I'll say with this situation Donald Trump has every single right to plead the fifth here But also the rest of us have the right to mock this fucking hypocrite. Because I don't know how many fucking examples there are of him saying one thing, insinuating the worst of all things, but then when he is in that position, oh, it's a different situation. Yeah, I guess the main point of this story is the man who once incited a mob is now pleading like the mob, in his words.

Starting point is 00:13:20 You see, the mob takes a fifth. And then, y'all, language is important. Some would say muy importante, molto importante, or hijo ni julio. And that's part of the reason why I've been trying to learn Spanish again as part of my new goals to better myself. You know, I failed Spanish twice in high school. It's something that always bothered me because I hate the way they tried to teach it. But now, thanks to Rocket Languages and more specifically, philspeakspanish.com, that's where you're going to want to go, I feel like I'm on a strong path. And it's all built

Starting point is 00:13:42 around whatever learning style you have. Are you a visual learner? Covered. Auditory learner? Awesome. And it's built so you can squeeze it into every day, whether you only have five or 45 minutes. The most important thing is you're not just learning, but it's actually setting you up for success for everyday conversations. You know, if I meet a new person in Spain that I want to know better, I can say, Quiero que te sientes en mi cara, por favor. Or let's say I'm stopped by customs.

Starting point is 00:14:01 I can say, Ese no es mi maleta. No, no, no. And, awesomely, not only are they a sponsor, not only have I teamed up with them at philspeakspanish.com. If you go or click any of these philspeaksinsertlanguages.com, because there's also Mandarin Chinese, German, French, Arabic, Russian, Portuguese, Japanese, Korean, Italian, sign language, and more. And I have all those clickable links down below. Not only do you start a trial version of the course that is yours forever without even entering in a credit card, they're going to give you, it is insane, 60% off. You got to use my link, get in on it now,

Starting point is 00:14:28 and start opening up a whole new world today. And then, should Supreme Court justices have term limits? That's a topic of conversation, a debate that's been going on for a while now, but has definitely picked up recently. And when looking into this, I found that Representative Ro Khanna first proposed the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act back in 2020. Later, reintroducing it again in 2021, and now has been pushing for the measure to be taken up since the court overturned Roe v. Wade. And among the things this bill would do, it would set 18-year term limits for all Supreme Court justices approved after its passage, and after those 18 years termed out, justices could still serve on lower courts. It would also change the appointment process so

Starting point is 00:14:59 every president could nominate a new justice during each odd year, giving them the power to nominate two justices per term. And if for any reason there were more than nine justices, the nine most recently appointed would serve on the court. The bill also mandates that the Senate must act on a nomination within 120 days or the nominee will automatically be seated. But the goal there being that the Senate majority can't just indefinitely block the president's nominee. And so with national trust in the Supreme Court at an all-time low, my interest peaked reading this, wanting to know more, and also kick the tires on this. I reached out to Representative Khanna and we talked about it. Congressman Khanna, we're going to just jump

Starting point is 00:15:26 straight into it. Why should Supreme Court justices have term limits? You've got unlimited access to music, but time? Now that's limited. The PC Insider's World's Elite MasterCard gets you unlimited PC Optimum points, free grocery delivery, and time back for what matters. Save time and earn $1,100 in average value each year. The PC Insider's World's Elite MasterCard. The card for living unlimited. Conditions apply to all benefits. Visit PCFinancial.ca for details.

Starting point is 00:15:58 Value is for illustrative purposes only. When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most? When your famous grainy mustard potato salad isn't so famous without the grainy mustard. When the barbecue's lit, but there's nothing to grill. When the in-laws decide that, actually, they will stay for dinner. Instacart has all your groceries covered this summer. So download the app and get delivery in as fast as 60 minutes. Plus, enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders.

Starting point is 00:16:25 Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart, groceries that over-deliver. Well, the founders never intended people to be on the Supreme Court for 40, 50 years. The idea was people would go on the court at the end of their legal careers as sort of a final service to the country. Now you have people gaming the system.

Starting point is 00:16:45 You have Clarence Thomas, for example, appointed when his early 40s. I mean, it makes no sense that 50 years after the president who appointed him, he may still be making decisions. So we need these justices to have a maximum of 18 years on the Supreme Court. And then they can go on to do something on another circuit court or district court that can still be judges for life, but only 18 years on the Supreme Court. Well, so I guess with that, right, people would say Article 3 of the Constitution states that federal judges hold their offices during good behavior, which is widely been interpreted as for life. So would your proposal require a constitutional amendment? And if not, are you concerned about the lawsuits? Is this doable? Or as some might say, is this kind of not PR, but kind of just angling? It is doable. The president's own Supreme Court commission recommended this as the most plausible

Starting point is 00:17:38 path. Now, you can't strip the justice of being a judge. If, let's say, Clarence Thomas, after 18 years, has to retire, he has to then either be on the circuit court or the district court or he could have senior status and still have an office and have the title of judge. You can't strip him of being a judge. But you can say that people should be limited in the amount of years on the Supreme Court. And many legal professors and experts have looked at it and said that is constitutional. And so if you if you were able to put through what you wanted, what would that mean for the justices on the Supreme Court that have been there over 18 years? Is it an immediate push out? Well, this is frankly open to interpretation. I would want an immediate push out. But you may have people who would argue

Starting point is 00:18:26 that you can't make it retroactive. You have to make it going forward. And that is a legal question that would have to be settled and is not clearly settled. I do think if you made it going forward, you would have a lot of support. And by the way, I think even people like Justice Roberts or others, if it goes up to the Supreme Court, would likely support it because they much prefer term limits to the expansion of the court. And I think if the court strikes down something like term limits, they know that the next measure would be expansion. Also, what would you say to people that say, the people on that, the justices on that court, that that's the point that it that in an ever changing government that we have, where every four years, you can have a

Starting point is 00:19:13 completely different administration pushing a completely different set of goals that were meant to have something that is consistent? Well, partly, I would just say they've been anything but consistent. I mean, stripping women of the right to abortion is stripping the environmental EPA of the right to actual climate change. I mean, this is not a court that's exactly showing consistency. But even putting aside my own views on those, I think 18 years is quite a lot of time for stability. I mean, that's equivalent to more than four terms of a presidency. 18 years is more than most members of Congress serve. And people are always for term limits for members of Congress or senators, a popular thing. Most members of Congress and senators don't stay more than 18 years. So I think you can have stability, but have a limit. And look, some people may say 12 years for the Supreme Court justices, some may say 20 years. So I think you can have stability, but have a limit. And look, some people may say 12

Starting point is 00:20:06 years for the Supreme Court justices, some may say 20 years. I think 18 is actually a pretty generous amount. And I know that you first proposed this in 2020. Obviously, we live in, a lot has happened since then. Do you think that there is a support for this? If not before, why now? I do think that there's building support. One reason is people understand now how out of touch this Supreme Court is and that has contributed to it. To President Biden, who ran as quite moderate on the court during his presidency, put together a commission. That's what he said. And the commission, while they haven't formally recommended the term limits, has said that that is the one that's most plausible. That's what a lot of the experts agreed on as a likely path. And three, term limits is something that even Republican voters agree on, independents agree on. So when you poll it, a lot of people say, yeah, that intuitively makes sense. And it's not political. It's not saying term limits may not even benefit right

Starting point is 00:21:12 immediately. The Democrats, in fact, the criticism from some people is this isn't a bold enough, drastic enough move to to to recompose the court. It's going to take some time. When you say that it's not political, I think there'd be a lot of pushback. And I would, to a certain degree, even push back, even as someone that is horrified by Roe v. Wade being being overturned, because this seems to a certain degree, especially with a new push in response to Roe v. Wade, in response to the EPA, as far as what they can do being stripped. And so I guess what would what do you see as the benefit of adding a new justice to the EPA as far as what they can do being stripped. And so I guess what would what do you see as the benefit of adding a new justice to the court every other year?

Starting point is 00:21:50 Because with how things are right now, there is a possibility that the who's appointing Supreme Court justices isn't going to go your specific way. Well, so I had proposed this before Roe versus Wade and before these decisions. So this is something I believe. I guess my view is that by having people on the court for so many years that they lose touch with what's going on in modern life. So you have a court packed with people who may not be in touch with what the climate change issues are of this generation, of what the challenges are of getting an abortion in this generation. And having 18 years ensures that justices don't lose touch with actual life as people live it. But you're right. Look, I mean,

Starting point is 00:22:37 if the proposal goes through, this is not a proposal to pack the court. I mean, the Democrats would still have to win elections. And if DeSantis or something wins in 24, obviously, I hope not, he would get two appointments. And then if a Democrat wins, they would get two appointments. So that's why I think it's it will strike it strikes many voters as fair. And that's why when you look at polling, you have independent Democrats and even Republicans supporting the proposal. So I mean, something you said there, I feel like it does have the potential to generate some pushback. So let's touch on it. When you talked about justices not keeping in mind modern life, that is going to push against the ideals of certain people that think that the justices,

Starting point is 00:23:20 what they're doing now, it's because they're going to going back to what the originalist interpretation of the Constitution. And so they're not supposed to be taking into account anything new. So is your mindset that that's completely wrong? Well, I think they have to look at the text of the Constitution, of course, and they have to interpret what the founders intended or the drafters of the relevant amendments, but they have to interpret it in the context of modernity, right? I mean, how do you interpret that without knowing what cars are, what computers are, or what modern life is? And so I would just say that you want someone who is steeped in the moment now, even if they're interpreting principles based on a tax. And second, I think you want a, you don't want too much distance between the democratic

Starting point is 00:24:12 legitimacy that a Supreme Court justice has, which is that a president elected by we, the people, is appointing them and their decision-making. And the longer they're on the court, the harder it is to argue for that democratic legitimacy. You're saying,'re on the court, the harder it is to argue for that democratic legitimacy. You're saying, oh, come on, someone appointed them 30 or 40 years ago, and that gives them the legitimacy now from we the people. I just think that that's a harder argument to make than if they were there up to 12, 18, 20 years. And Congressman Khanna, something I always like to end these interviews on is, is there something that you would like to say to my audience? Maybe it's an answer to a question that you wish I had asked or anything like that.

Starting point is 00:24:51 I think we have too much deference for people who are Supreme Court justices as somehow almost philosopher kings and that they're coming on as independent and they're going to make these decisions. Really, they are political actors and they have often worked on campaigns. I mean, look at how many people were down there on Bush versus Gore, Kavanaugh and others as lawyers for that. So these are partisan actors, just like people in Congress are partisan actors. Senators are partisan actors. And obviously, we have to abide by Supreme Court decisions because we are a nation of rule of law, but we shouldn't afford them this census as they're

Starting point is 00:25:31 sort of holier than thou. And the term limits, I think, helps remind people that this is a political process and these are political actors making those decisions. Congressman, thank you for the time. Thank you. With all of that now said, I want to pass the question up to you. What are your thoughts regarding term limits for Supreme Court justices? Yes, no, maybe so. Why, why not?

Starting point is 00:25:48 I'd love to know your thoughts on this. But that is where that story and today's show ends. Thanks for watching and being subscribed to these daily dives in the news. Also, if you want more news, I got you covered here. But as always, my name's Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in. I love your faces and I'll see you tomorrow.

Your Ad Here

The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 8.10 I'M GLAD MY MOM DIED... Why Ariana Grande Jennette McCurdy Backlash Misses The Point & Today's News

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.