- So let's get this out of the way. I just shot a whole episode without realizing my hoodie was stained. So regardless of the
reality of the situation, I will be moving forward with the argument that this is actually
an artistic statement about the state of our world. Don't see it. Oh, I guess maybe you're not smart. Like I, big brain DeFranco. Starting the week on a high note. Sup, you beautiful bastards,
hope you the fantastic Monday, welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show. Buckle up, hit that like button, otherwise it will punch you in the throat and let's just jump into it. And first up today let's talk
about a batch of quickie news. So first up, we looked at Texas where the governor has now issued a disaster declaration
for Brazoria County. That after the presence of a
dangerous amoeba was detected in a city's water supply. That amoeba is called Naegleria Fowleri and according to the CDC, the
organism is typically found in warm freshwater lakes and rivers. People are exposed when it
enters the body from the nose. From there it travels to the brain where it destroys brain tissue. And officials are now aware of this issue because tragically it
was linked to the death of a six year old boy who passed away in the city of Lake
Jackson earlier this month. He's believed he was
exposed from the amoeba either from a water hose at his home or from a city splash pad. That then prompted testing and according to the
governor's declaration, presence of Naegleria
Fowleri was identified in three of 11 tests of the water supply, posing an imminent threat
to public health and safety, including loss of life. The Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality issued a do not use water
alert Friday for eight cities. We saw that warning lifted on Saturday for all cities in Brazoria
County, except for Lake Jackson, with Lake Jackson remaining
under a boil water advisory. And as of now, local officials say that they are working on a plan to flush and disinfect the water system. Then let's talk about
everyone's favorite game when it comes to
influencers, find the fake. With this round centering around a tweet that went viral over the weekend, exposing a secret behind some
influencer travel photos. That tweet reading, I just
found out LA Instagram girlies are using studio sets that
look like private jets for their Instagram pics. It's crazy that anything you're
looking at could be fake. The setting, the clothes, the body. I don't know, it just kind
of shakes my reality a bit. That post including photos
of a private jet set up that's actually a studio in California which you can rent for $64 an hour. Following this, we then saw influencers who had posed on this set
and being called out online. Perhaps most focused on
here where the Mian twins. With them then eventually
editing their Instagram captions to admit that they were on a set. And while a ton people
were upset about this, they thought it was hilarious and sad, you had others pointing out that it's not exactly a new idea. You have things in the past like Bow Wow who famously was called out for posting a private
plane photo on social media before being spotted
on a commercial flight. People noting other ridiculous things, like when people buy empty shopping bags to pretend that they've
gone on a shopping spree. But the two main things
I want to hit on here, one stop being fake you fakers. And two, let this be your
friendly DeFranco reminder that how people present themselves online is often different than
what they are in real life. It's part of the reason why you should never compare
yourself and your situation to what you see online. That's an artist self
portrait, not reality. Then in entertainment news, we should talk about Sohla El-Waylly. And if you don't recall, she
was a host on Bon Appetit's massively popular YouTube channels. And as Tubefilter noted, she was one of the first
staffers to call out the publications discriminatory
compensation practices and lack of diversity on camera. She and a number of hosts left the channel and what we're seeing this week is actually something very awesome. And Waylly has teamed up with the massive YouTube food sensation that is Binging with Babish. The Binging with Babish channel which has been incredibly successful, just under 8 million
subscribers as of right now. several series, Binging with Babish, Basics with Babish, Being with Babish, has now been renamed and rebranded the Babish Culinary Universe. Seemingly to allow shows to be launched that do not involve him
and the first that we saw is a new series titled Stump Sola, with Sola El-Waylly doing at
least a run of 10 episodes. And personally, I think this whole thing is actually very exciting. It appears like a win
win across the board. Sola was obviously a fan
favorite over at Bon Appetit so to see her then be
able to move to a channel that's even larger, that's huge, and then you see binging with
Babish, right, Andrew Rea, seeing him go from what was
a small one man operation to now this much bigger
thing, that's exciting to see, that's actual organic talent making big waves in the community. Then in the entertainment
news that goes political we have the Rock. You've likely seen it by now, but you had Dwayne the Rock Johnson officially endorsing Joe
Biden and Kamala Harris. And as far as if this actually
moves any undecided voters, who can ever tell? But as far as my reaction
to this announcement, I was actually genuinely surprised. And what I mean by that
is I wasn't surprised that the Rock would be
voting for Joe Biden. Right, he put out that video
back in June where he said, where is our leader while
our country is on its knees? But there was still enough
of a gray area in that video that you'd be like, ah,
this isn't gonna hurt him. But for the Rock who is
generally seen as successful because he's appealing
to almost every person. Like, him inserting himself in one of the most divisive
elections that we've ever seen, that's bold and notable. You know, with this story there are two questions in my mind. One, why is your shirt so tight, sir? It's aggressive, right? And two, I wonder what
this endorsement does. Once again, like, does it
move more people to go, okay, even the Rock thinks this. Or, you know, does this hurt his career or does it help his career in some way? And when you look
following his endorsement, there are a lot of big reactions, a lot of love, a lot of hate. And his YouTube videos for this, the likes and dislikes are split. On Instagram you see his
post has a ton of likes but a lot of the top comments are actually people
speaking out against it. I think it's likely we won't
see for six to 12 months of, you know, did this
hurt or help the Rock? Is it enough to make or break fans? Or even saying that it brings
up another question of, how we move past a time
of being apolitical? Right, do people expect their celebrities and their companies to
stand for something? Like, for example, in the
corporate business world, one of the most notable examples is Nike and Colin Kaepernick. When that was announced it appeared to be a very divisive moment but you know, you look now and the company
has just continued to grow, continue to succeed. Also in this story that's turning into just a number of questions, what your thoughts around the argument that celebrity you should just shut up when it comes to politics? What has your opinion on
that been in the past? Has that changed since we literally have
a celebrity president? Although celebrities in
politics is not a new thing. I mean, Ronald Reagan,
Arnold Schwartzenegger. Does it depend on the person? Yeah, really, any and all
thoughts you have on that, I'd love to hear from you
when those comments down below and also the reasoning
behind those opinions. But from that I want to
share some stuff I love today in Today in Awesome,
brought to you by Keeps. You know, two out of three guys will experience some form
of male pattern baldness by the time that they're 35. Everyone's got that brother,
uncle or that friend, and if you don't want to go down that road you don't have to just sit idly by. Keeps it helps you stop hair
loss before it's too late with their scientific and
affordable approach to treatments that are up to 90% effective at reducing and stopping
further hair loss. And Keeps offers generic
versions of the only two FDA approved hair loss
products that are out there. So some of you may have in
fact already tried them before, but probably never at this price. You know, you used to have to go to the doctor's office for your
prescription but with Keeps you can get these products
delivered directly to your home. And fantastically for a limited time you beautiful bastards can
get 50% off your order. So if you're ready to take action and prevent hair loss,
go to Keeps.com/DeFranco or just click that link in
the description down below to receive 50% off your first order. The first bit of awesome
today is actually a giveaway. I'll be selecting two lucky
people from my text line, 813-213-4423, and two people
from my private mailing list that you can join at shoptofranklin.com to get a free one of these. I'm very bad at this, one of these. Or one of the short sleeves
if you don't want to wear a, you know, hoodies every day, all day. I will continue to do so
regardless of your choice. We had will Smith doing a house tour of the Fresh Prince mansion. You had Mr. Beast's, would you rather have a
giant diamond or $100,000? Which, I mean this in a positive way, these videos now feel
like a genuine TV show. You had Netflix putting out
Father of the Bride Part 3 ish. With Netflix also putting
out the full episode on their YouTube channel of
Explained: Whose Vote Counts. John Cusack breaking down
his most iconic characters. And if you wanna see the full versions of everything I just shared,
the secret link of the day, really anything at all, links as always there in
the description down below. And the last thing that we're
going to talk about today of course, is the major news
around the Supreme Court. Right, over the weekend
Donald Trump announced that he was nominating Amy Coney Barrett to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg seat. To give you a little background here, Barrett is a federal judge
in the US Court of Appeals for the 7th circuit. A role that she has held since she was appointed
by Trump back in 2017 after working as a law
professor at Notre Dame. If she is appointed, which
it seems incredibly likely, she will become the
youngest member of the court at 48 years old. Trumps two other appointees,
Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch are both in their 50s, meaning the three Trump appointed justices could potentially serve for decades. Ultimately you'd have a
conservative Supreme Court with a six person majority. Also with Barrett's nomination we've seen religion brought up. I was unaware of this, but
her confirmation would mean that six of the nine
justices are Catholic. You know, regarding her religion, you have some concern
that her religious beliefs might impact her rulings. But you have others
saying, it's disgusting to criticize someone over their faith. Also, something regarding
religion I wanted to note, in recent days you have
others raising questions about her and her husband's
reported involvement in a Christian group called
the People of Praise. According to reports, that group, which is largely described
as a Christian sect, grew out of the Catholic
charismatic renewal movement that began in the late 1960s and adopted Pentecostal practices
like speaking in tongues, belief in prophecy, and divine healing. And her alleged
involvement with that group is why you saw the Handmaid's
Tale trending on Twitter. This because some claim that the group was the inspiration for the
original Handmaid's book, though that has been debunked. But regardless, religion
has been a big question for this justice specifically. And seemingly in response
to those concerns we saw Barrett for her part
of the official announcement of her nomination, say. - I also want to acknowledge
you, my fellow Americans. The president has nominated me to serve on the United
States Supreme Court and that institution belongs to all of us. If confirmed, I would not assume that role for the sake of those in my own circle and certainly not for my own sake. I would assume role to serve you. - And then something
that Barrett also hit on when describing her personal
judicial philosophy, which he said was the same as former Supreme Court
justice Antonin Scalia. Who she actually clerked for and described as her mentor, saying. - His judicial philosophy is mine too. A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold. - And this idea that
Barrett will follow closely in Scalia's footsteps is really important to the ongoing debate
that we've been seeing. On one side, you have many
people in media outlets saying yes, she will shift the court, but she is ideologically in line with other conservative judges. But on the other side,
you have a lot of others, and specifically you see
this on social media, saying that her past decisions, public statements, and publications show that she is an extremist and a religious fundamentalists. And regarding those two sides, we've seen a lot of confusion
over Barrett's record, where she stands on key issues, and how that could affect
future Supreme Court decisions. And as far as those key issues, first up a topic that possibly gets this video demonetized and suppressed, Roe V. Wade and abortion rights. Here Barrett has been quite public about our personal opposition to abortion in both academic and judicial writings. She has explicitly said that
abortion is always immoral and her nomination has
been widely supported by antiabortion groups. Also, in addition to her personal views and her role as a federal judge, she is overseeing three
cases regarding laws restricting abortions in
our home state of Indiana. And all three of those
cases she expressed concerns over earlier rulings that
had ended those restrictions. Twice joining dissenting opinions that would have struck
down lower court rulings and upheld abortion restrictions. But, you have some arguing
that both her personal beliefs and past rulings do not necessarily mean that you would strike down. Roe V. Wade. While Trump vowed to appoint justices ready to overrule the 1973 decision that established the
constitution recognizes a right to abortion, Barret has not yet said publicly how she would rule on abortion if confirmed to the Supreme Court. And this is where things
get a little messy. Barrett has in the past called
Roe and erroneous decision and claimed that it ignited
a national controversy by deciding the issue
via the Supreme Court, rather than leaving it up to the states. But at the same time, she
has also repeatedly said she doesn't think SCOTUS
would overturn the ruling. Speaking at an appearance
in 2016 she stated, "I don't think the core
case, Roe's core holding "that women have a right to an abortion, "I don't think that would change. "but I think the question "of whether people can get
very late term abortions, "you know, how many restrictions
can be put on clinics, "I think that will change." right, and that last
point is really important because while many experts believe that it is unlikely that SCOTUS will wholesale overturn Roe anytime soon, what is very likely is that
this court will make decisions on cases that will slowly chip
away at the ruling instead. Though, understand, this
is a point of debate because the conservative
justices do have enough votes to go directly after abortion. And that's for a number of reasons, including the Barret has been
clear that she would be open to reversing a Supreme Court precedent if she believed it went
against the Constitution. Right, so Roe V. Wade, one
of the big things here, and in addition to that, you
have the Affordable Care Act. And the timing with this one
is incredibly significant because just a week after election day the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on the latest challenge to the ACA. And notably here, Barrett
has publicly criticized the Supreme Court decision that upheld Obamacare as Constitutional. in a 2017 article that she wrote she quoted her mentor Scalia's
dissension with the law by saying that it should
be called SCOTUScare. With her argument being that an originalist
reading of the constitution would not allow for Obamacare. Also criticizing Chief Justice
Roberts stance on Obamacare, saying that he considered too many factors outside of the Constitution when considering Obamacare's
constitutionality. Also regarding the ACA making
employers offer birth control regardless of their religious preferences. In 2012 she allegedly signed a petition against this provision and is quoted by Newsweek
saying at the time, "This is a grave violation
of religious freedom "and cannot stand." And this concern that a
newly appointed Barrett along with the other conservative justices would be killing the ACA is something that we saw
Biden speak on this weekend. - This is about your health care. This is about whether or
not the ACA will exist. This is about whether or not preexisting conditions will
be continued to be covered. This is about whether or not
a woman can be charged more for the same procedure as a man. This is about people's health care in the middle of a pandemic. - Also, with everything I
just covered I do wanna note, those are just two key points. It is very likely through
the confirmation process other things will be raised, questions about her
opinions and past choices regarding LGBTQ plus rights, immigration, maybe even stories
related to this election. There's been a lot of time
for people like Ted Cruz, President Trump, about getting
this person on the court in case anything comes up with the vote. Which actually, regarding
the timing what happens next, Barrett will be meeting with senators for the next two weeks. Notably, that is much shorter than usual. Normally lawmakers are
given around six weeks to meet with and vet a SCOTUS nominee. But there Republicans have argued that the quick turnaround is okay because Barrett has already
been vetted by the Senate. And this is because back in 2018 she was actually being
considered for the SCOTUS seat that is now held by Brett Kavanaugh. After that two weeks Republicans have scheduled
four consecutive days of confirmation hearings
starting October 12th with the full committee
vote set for October 22nd. With of course their idea being to have a full floor
vote before the election. Though, officially McConnell
has not yet committed to a pre election vote. And the question of
will they, or won't they regarding a pre-election vote, it's less about can they. They can, as of right now, it
is more a matter of strategy. And ultimately the question of
how will this impact voting. Pushing through the now
before election day, does that supercharge
liberals or conservatives? And that's incredibly important because right now Republicans
control the Senate but there are a number of Republicans who are vulnerable right now. But at the same time, there
is the very real situation that even if Republicans lose the Senate they could still approve Barrett in the time after the election and before the new session in January. But for now we have to wait
and see not what will happen but kind of the process that
gets us to that end point. Because the power is where
the power is right now and that can only change
if people go out and vote. And that is where I'm
going to end today's show. As always thank you for being a part of these daily dives into the news, supporting the show with
like, shares whatever. Also if you're new here definitely
hit that subscribe button and hey, maybe text me at 813-213-4423. I'll make sure you get a
notification for the show, sometimes behind the scenes
stuff, cool opportunities. But with that said, of course as always, my name's Philip DeFranco,
you've just been filled in, I love yo faces, and
I'll see you tomorrow.
