The Chud Shooting Problem is Crazy, Xi's Dangerous Trump Warning, & Why Georgia Needs a Miracle or 2
PDS Published 05/14/2026
-
We got to talk about how this judge shooting problems just crazy and exposes a lot. She's dangerous Taiwan threat to Trump and more freaking people out about what happens next and why this Georgia election could change everything, but almost no one knows about it.
We're talking about all of that on today's brand new Philip DeFranco show. You daily dive into the news. So buckle up, hit that like button, and let's jump into it.
Starting with this.
It's got to be one of the most racist people I've seen on the internet in maybe ever or a long time, which is really. That's a crazy high bar, considering the the existence of Elon Musk's version of Twitter or old school Call of Duty lobbies has now found himself in what many have been predicting was going to be the inevitable outcome, though maybe one that he wanted to. His name is Dalton. He's 28 years old, but some people know him as Chud, the builder.
“We're sick of living in the bomb shelter as white people. We're sick of being told that we don't have the freedom of speech anymore.”
Says who? My ancestors fought and died for that. I'm going outside. I'm taking my helmet. I'm taking a deep breath. Look, nothing's going to happen. They're just going to keep chipping out regardless on whether you call them the word or not. Right.
And that guy, he's now been charged with attempted murder. So let's start with some context.
Chud the builder, he styles himself as a free speech patriot. What that appears to really mean is that he films or streams himself walking around in public, calling black people the N-word and challenging them to fight. Generally what I describe as just disgusting content.
But apparently there's a number of people that want to watch it because he's got hundreds of thousands of followers. And as he's been getting more and more attention, his bigoted antics, they've kind of escalated more and more with him appearing to use pepper spray on someone who knocked off his hat last week, for example.
“You heard me. Fuck, don't. Touch me again.”
And more than once, he's landed himself in hot water. Like last November, he got arrested for harassment. Or last week he was arrested again for an incident that happened at a steakhouse in Nashville.
Apparently, somebody called the restaurant to notify them that a notorious bigot was there. And then the staff asked him to stop recording.
“Kill Me. We're live streaming on my. Everything. Okay? You can you can turn that off. Please don't touch me. I'm not to leave.”
“If you didn't ask me to leave, I'm in my face like that, sir.”
“I'm not. I'm just asking you not to record video and the rest.”
“And that's fine. We can leave. Hey, pudgy. Calm down. Why don't you go to the street? Why don't you go poop in the street? Hey, man, don't. Don't get aggressive. I mean, we'll get up and leave.”
“Thanks for the free food.”
So, according to the police, have a David. That food was not free. It actually cost $371.55. But still, it appeared that he left without paying unless you considered a handful of racial slurs payment.
And then he continued to make a scene outside.
“Well, I would not eat here about you because they just kicked us out because apparently my things, my guests, sir, don't come here. They don't like freedom.”
Shortly after that, he was back on the street hurling the N-word at a guy and making monkey noises.
“Look at him jumping out. Look at that monkey. Go climb a tree. Somebody get him a banana. Right.”
So with that, he ended up being charged with theft to services, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. And so now, apparently, you know, he's well known in this community for this shit. Pretty much no one likes him.
And even Nick went right. The white nationalist who maybe you've seen a video where he's talking about how he thinks Hitler is cool. He thinks that Chud lobs the N-word at people so aggressively that it's a bit much.
“I don't think people should be fired for uttering the word. And I think it's a funny word. I don't think it should be treated like a blasphemy, but let's be honest, it's not a nice thing to say. It's actually not a very nice thing to say. And I don't know that we should actually be out there saying, hey man, we should be able to go up to black people and start blasting a slur that offends them without expecting them to be offended.”
But now the reason they were talking about this today is about what happened yesterday.
You would cut the builder going to the Montgomery County Courthouse in Clarksville, Tennessee, where he had a civil case, but that one not over racist harassment. He was reportedly there for an unpaid debt.
While he was outside of the courthouse, he got into an altercation with someone that witnesses described as a black man. And you can see the video of the fight here. And it's not 100% clear exactly what happened. But reportedly a gun was fired.
And shortly afterward, Chud live streamed himself talking to first responders, sending a group, including the black man were laughing and pointing at him as he walked by.
And then.
“He said, walk away from me. I walked away from him. He came back up to me. He literally said, I have PTSD. I feel like I'm in. He said, you start saying all that chimp out to me, I'm going to hit you. He hit me, started wailing on me even after I had to defend myself by shooting him.”
Now, according to authorities, that man was hospitalized in his in stable condition. Also, Judd apparently shot himself during the scuffle, according to the district attorney general, though he was only grazed.
And so at first he got charged with aggravated assault, reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon, and employing a firearm during a dangerous felony. But now some of the biggest news is that he is facing another charge attempted murder.
And as far as the reaction that you're seeing to this, it really depends on which corner of the internet you go to.
The world will say a big thing that you're seeing is besides concern for the shooting victim, and the glee over the arrest is a lot of people going, I mean, what did people expect? What did Chud expect?
People are arguing that you can't go around with a gun, yelling racial slurs at people and challenging them to fight in the most obnoxious way possible and not expect something to happen. With many saying that what he's doing was incitement, especially when it appears that he's constantly posted about how he's ready and willing to shoot someone.
But he's doing what you're seeing in these streams and writing, “I'll defend my life with lethal force. Do not approach me with intent to threaten bodily harm.”
And then adding, and this is the one that's getting a lot of traction.
“Series finale is dead chimp on the pavement and you monkeys rioting when I walk free. Stay tuned.”
Right.
Even in that encounter on the street that I showed you, right after you got kicked out of the steakhouse, he threatened to shoot the guy.
“Well, he's out, right? I'm about to blow his brains out. He pulls back around here, I'm about to blow his brains out.”
And you got people arguing that these aren't outliers. He threatens people all the time.
But then also, you have a lot of people pointing not just Ethel's individual trajectory, but also kind of that of our whole country. You've got a lot of people seeing this guy as the culmination of two very disturbing trends in our culture, the first being kind of the rage content, where people act as abrasive and anti-social and public as they can just to kind of provoke reactions. Game. The algorithm get clipped and clipped and clipped.
And the second just being the normalization of open, unabashed, in-your-face racism that we've seen over the past couple of years, a lot of which it comes from. And I hate to be that fucking guy, but it's like it's right there in your face constantly, though I know a million things happen, so it's very easy to forget.
But it comes from Trump. It was only just three months ago. I know it feels like probably a million years that he posted that video showing Barack and Michelle Obama as apes in the jungle, a thing, by the way. He refused to apologize for, and criticism of which Caroline Leavitt dismissed as fake outrage.
Same dear leader that called Somalis garbage who don't contribute anything. He claimed Haitians were eating cats and dogs in Springfield. He also said that Haitians were poisoning the blood of our country. He said that criminal, illegal immigrants are just not human.
I mean, I could keep going on and on, but as far as what happens with either, we're gonna have to wait to see.
On one hand, you have a lot of people saying they hope the charges stick here to make an example of a person doing this so that you don't see other copycats out there, especially because you have some arguing that he's been trying to provoke a situation like this, whether to be able to try to provoke someone, to be able to claim self-defense and get famous off of it.
But also, this guy has plenty of supporters, a number of people seeing him as a champion of free speech. Right now, you're even seeing a surge in donations to an old donation page that he had out. And it's a page that appears to have been started by either Lee that says:
“Sometimes I've used the N-word and what I thought was edgy, harmless humor.”
Adding:
“I know it's controversial, but it's my right to speak freely.”
Without appearing to be connected to a campaign where initially he wrote:
“I was fired from my previous contracting job after BLM activists targeted me over words, I shared online jokes and opinions they twisted to end my career.”
But hey, for now, we're gonna have to wait to see what happens with this case, right? Do we get more information, more video, anything like that? And also what happens with the charges and everything else?
And so in the meantime, I'd really love to know your thoughts, opinions and reactions here. And then what a transition this is going to be. We've got more that we're going to dive into in just a minute.
-
But first let me thank a sponsor and say, you know, there are certain things in life that just quietly take your money every month and your phone bill, it's one of the worst offenders. Like it just sits there charging you, hoping you won't notice until you do.
And that's why I like today's sponsor, Mint Mobile, because they're built around not doing that to you.
Mobile gives you premium wireless plans starting at 15 bucks a month, which sounds vague, but it's not. You get unlimited talk and text on the nation's largest 5G network, plus free calling to Mexico, Canada, in the UK. And they've got options where you five, 15, 20GB or unlimited. So you're not overpaying for data that you're not even using.
The way they keep prices low is simple. You buy in bulk three, 6 or 12 months, or the longer you go, the more you save switching. Easy. You can do it from your couch in minutes. With eSIM, keep your number. Keep your phone. No store, no hassle. And if you do need a new phone, you can just get one through mint. They're just making the whole process easier.
I mean, paying less for something that you use every single day and not dealing with carrier nonsense, that's a win. Hey, if you like your money, Mint Mobile is for you. Got plans at Mint mobile code? Again, that's Mint Mobile.
MINT MOBILE
Shop plans starting at 15 bucks a month at https://www.mintmobile.com/DEFRANCO. Thank you to Mint Mobile for partnering with us on this video!
-
But then diving right back into the news, we've got to talk about this huge US-China news. Because, among other things, Chinese President XI Jinping told Donald Trump that the fate of Taiwan could lead to war between the US and China.
A new intelligence report shows that Trump's Iran wars given China a major edge over the United States, and that edge might only just be growing as the war continues, with Trump actually asking China for its help because Trump, he's currently in Beijing meeting with the Chinese president to discuss a number of issues, but also, according to XI himself, the most important issue for China at the summit. It's Taiwan, right in Taiwan is a self-governing, democratic island that China claims sovereignty over.
And while the US doesn't officially recognize Taiwan as an independent country, it is the territory's most important military backer, and American military planning for that region is already largely based around defending it against a Chinese invasion.
While Trump revealed ahead of his visit that she wanted to discuss American arms sales to Taiwan, I would say more importantly, he confirmed that the white House would be willing to have that conversation, which is huge. That's a key thing. That is a massive ship, because the official U.S. position has long been that it sells weaponry to Taiwan without consulting Beijing.
That said, we fast forward today and we start with the two presidents making some opening remarks, Trump telling XI that it was an honor to be his friend, and claiming that the relationship between China and the United States is going to be better than ever before.
With XI. He said that he hoped that the two countries could avoid what's known as the acidity trap, which is a theory named after an ancient Greek historian suggesting that when a rising or risen power like China threatens an existing great power like the United States, there tends to be war.
And that proved to be especially poignant because afterwards, in an hours long closed door meeting, she reportedly told Trump that Taiwan is his top priority and that Missandei that it could lead to war. Or at least that's according to a readout from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, which claimed that she specifically said:
“The Taiwan question is the most important issue in China US relations.”
And is adding:
“If it is handled properly, the bilateral relationship will enjoy overall stability. Otherwise, the two countries will have clashes and even conflicts, putting the entire relationship in great jeopardy.”
And so then as far as Trump, according to a white House official who spoke with the Washington Post, he just moved on to the next topic without addressing she's comments with him also later describing the meeting as great again without acknowledging what had apparently been said.
And that's as the White House's readout of the meeting made no mention of Taiwan reclaimed instead that the two leaders had agreed to deepen trade ties and combat the flow of fentanyl precursors into the United States.
And then, as far as the question of Iran, it said that they both agreed to get Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz and that the country can never have a nuclear weapon. But at least as of right now, it's not really clear if and to what extent China is actually going to take any meaningful action to push Iran toward either outcome, especially now that Iran, as of this week, is reportedly allowing more Chinese vessels to pass through the strait.
The strait where just while Trump and she had been meeting, there have been at least two more attacks on ships nearby. First, in Indian cargo vessel carrying livestock from Africa to the UAE, reportedly ending up at the bottom of the sea off the coast of Oman, though all 14 crew members were rescued.
And second, according to the UK Maritime Trade Operations Center, unauthorized personnel boarded a ship anchored off the coast of the UAE and they were steering it towards a run but then getting back to China, right? Another key point. It's been pretty actively supporting Iran during the war, albeit mostly behind the scenes.
In addition to having been a bit of an economic lifeline for Iran, it's given Iran intelligence and access to a spy satellite that's tracked the position of U.S. forces in the region. It's also supplied so-called dual use components that Iran also needs to produce drones, missiles and other weaponry.
And then China may have also provided weapons ready to go as well. Just last month, for example, American intelligence agencies reportedly obtained information showing that it may have delivered or been getting ready to send shoulder fired missiles capable of shooting down low flying aircraft.
And just this week. You're the New York Times reporting that Chinese companies are looking for ways to sell weapons to Iran through other countries in order to hide their origin.
And while it's not clear right now how many, if any, weapons have been shipped, and it's not known whether Chinese officials have officially approved the sales, it seems unlikely that any talks may have taken place between Chinese companies in Iran without the knowledge of the government.
So taking that into account, you have a lot of experts doubting if the current talks are going to be game changing in any way.
But there also is disagreement about where their significance does lie on one hand, for example, you have people like a former Chinese diplomat who's now a researcher telling The Washington Post, no U.S. president visited China in the past nine years. Firms being here is sending the most important signal that China and the US are no longer aiming for new breakthroughs, but striving to restore some stability.
Then, on the other hand, you have people like the person formerly in charge of the China policy on Joe Biden's National Security Council, saying she is giving Trump the TV ready spectacle that he was hoping for, and adding China is hoping to trade symbolism for substance using protocol and Trump's preference for pageantry to hold off a return to economic escalation by time for China to build up its strength.
And notably, that same expert also wrote an opinion piece that was put out in The Times this week, arguing that she is planning for China's final victory over the United States, writing:
“Mr. Trump shortsightedness plays directly into Mr. she's larger aims.”
Saying for the first time he may now see a path forward, achieving goals such as disrupting U.S. alliances in Asia and weakening American support for Taiwan, as well as Washington's ability to impede China's rise through technology, export restrictions and economic sanctions.
And while, of course, that is an opinion that is a take, notably, it may even be one shared by members of the American military intelligence community, at least to some extent.
And part of the reason I say that is because you also had The Washington Post reporting today on a confidential intelligence assessment that apparently shows how China is taking advantage of Trump's Iran war to gain a military, diplomatic and economic edge over the state.
On the economic front, I should say that Trump's argued that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is a big problem for China, but this intelligence assessment reportedly found that China has fared reasonably well thanks to its investments in renewable energy, along with vast oil reserves.
You've got Ryan has a China expert at the Brookings Institution explaining:
“China is the second most insulated country in the world to the energy crisis, after only the United States.”
But also notably, well, during past energy crises, the US officials around the world and held international emergency meetings, the Trump administration, they've apparently been uninterested in doing the same thing this time around.
China appears to be filling that gap already having offered its help to several countries, including US allies like Thailand, Australia and the Philippines.
And so there you have Haas adding:
“This is not altruism. It is Beijing seizing on an opportunity to drive wedges between America and its traditional partners.”
And then with that, on the diplomatic front, you also have China calling out the illegality of the war in an effort to undermine America's image on the international stage, though I will say Trump's doing plenty of that on his own.
And then on the military front, as we've talked about, the administration's gone deep into the US stockpiles of missiles and air defense interceptors. It sparked concerns that the US, it's going to be less prepared for a potential conflict with China.
But also another factor is that the wars put American military capabilities and tactics and full display so that Beijing can plan their own future operations.
Then also with this, you have the Trump administration firing back, with the Pentagon's chief spokesman saying assertions claiming the global balance of power have shifted towards any nation other than the states of America are fundamentally false.
And then as far as China, you had a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy saying:
“The pressing priority now is to prevent, by all means, a relapse in fighting rather than exploit the situation to throw mud at other countries.”
But ultimately, outside of the initial short term PR of this visit happening and all the visuals, time will tell. You know what the real long term impacts become, whether it be things like trade, the war in Iran and everything in between.
-
But then from that, I want to do two final things one small, one big, knocking out the little guy.
First, congratulations to Brock C eats latest weekly winner, who just scored $500 in tickets and is going to go see ASAP Rocky for the rest of you all. That's right. Psyche is still giving away $500 in tickets, and you should definitely end today if you haven't already.
You be the next winner and snag $500 towards seeing a favorite artist, sporting event or play. I mean, there's like over 70,000 events to choose from. Just add code DiFranco to your ski cap profile for a chance of the weekly $500 prize. No purchase necessary.
SEATGEEK
Use code “PHIL10” for 10% OFF your first SeatGeek order & returning buyers use code “DEFRANCO” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes! https://seatgeek.onelink.me/RrnK/PHIL10
-
But then with that said, it brings us to the big final thing that I want to talk about today. It is massively important just in the world and also to me.
And it starts with the fact that no sitting justice on the Georgia Supreme Court has lost reelection since 1922, and it's also not a uniquely Georgia thing across all 13 states to pick their justices through nonpartisan elections. Incumbents. When 94% of the time between 2008 and 2025.
But this next Tuesday, May 19th, you have two Democratic back lawmakers who are going to try to break that streak in Georgia.
Whether you live here or not, you should care about how this goes, because for a lot of the issues that people actually care about that affect day to day life, the federal courts, they've spent the last few years closing the door and shoving those questions back down to the states.
Dobbs an abortion back to the states. The Voting Rights Act been gutted piece by piece in the US Supreme Court's decision this year in Louisiana. Lay it effectively shut the federal courthouse on most redistricting challenges.
So voting rights, privacy, bodily autonomy, how your district is drawn. Increasingly, the question of who decides it's not landing with the US Supreme Court, it's landing with your state Supreme Court. And that puts Georgia in a very interesting and important position.
Right now, a lot of people don't know this. Every justice currently sitting on the Georgia Supreme Court, except one, was originally appointed by a Republican governor.
And another thing that a lot of people don't know is that Georgia state constitution actually has stronger protections in the US Constitution, though these Republican appointees, they're part of why Georgia's six week abortion ban is still in effect, a band that actually two of the justices that are being challenged voted to reinstate in 2024.
But here's the thing. There is a playbook for changing all this.
In Wisconsin, for example, voters spent three years flipping a 4 to 3 conservative state Supreme Court into a 5 to 2 Liberal majority. And because of that, they've already thrown out Republican gerrymander and restored ballot drop boxes.
And while Georgia is not Wisconsin, do not get it confused. A playbook is still a playbook.
And so this next Tuesday, you got three Georgia Supreme Court seats on the ballot. One incumbent, Justice Ben Land. He's running unopposed, but the other two, Justice Charlie Bethel, a former Republican state senator, and Justice Sarah Hawkins Warren, were both appointed in 2018 by Republican Governor Nathan Deal. And current Republican Governor Brian Kemp has endorsed both of them.
Because this is such an important moment. I had their challengers as my guest today. You've got Miracle Rankin, who's a trial attorney whose built a career on catastrophic truck wrecks, medical malpractice and corporate negligence cases, as well as Jen Jordan, who's a former Democratic state senator and the party's 2022 nominee for state attorney general.
And with this, just a quick transparency thing. I think it is very important to be as transparent as possible, let you know where my bias is. Land. I've already voted for both of them. Early voting here continues until Friday, and then Election day is May 19th. So on Tuesday, that's that's the last chance you get.
So one there's that.
Then two, of course, my wife, Lindsey DiFranco, is running for Georgia State House district 47 here in Georgia. She's a born and raised Georgia girl. Her family has stake in what Georgia looks like moving forward, and I just personally find it important to be upfront about those things, because I get really annoyed when people are like trying to be impartial and act like they have no personal opinions or feelings or they don't vote.
And the final practical thing for my fellow Georgians out there, again, early voting in Georgia ends this Friday. There is no runoff. There is no I'll just vote in November and Tuesday. That's the whole race. Make a voting plan. Double check everything at vote. Sometimes if you're doing early voting, it's a different place and when it's actually election day.
But with that said, let's jump into it with miracle, Rankin and Ginger.
-
So miracle, I'll say in a in a recent interview, you mentioned that the Georgia Constitution actually has more protections than the US Constitution, but we need a Georgia Supreme Court that that read it, reads it correctly.
And, Jen, you've said that while historically Georgia has a constitution that's been interpreted more expansively and progressively, the people on the court right now, they do not read it that way.
So the first question that I have in mind that I might have to tweak it is what cases do you think that the Georgia Supreme Court got wrong and why?
“So I'll jump in first.
So this is a little bit of kind of a tight line, but in tightrope I should say. So I'll just give one example for just to kind of lay it out there.
The Georgia Supreme Court recognized a right of privacy decades before the US Supreme Court did in Griswold versus Connecticut and Roe v Wade. And so for decades and decades, the Georgia Supreme Court has recognized a right of privacy.
And so when we talk about the the Georgia Supreme Court and probably the Georgia Constitution being more progressive, that's the way it has been interpreted in the past by prior by prior iterations of the court.
We have not seen that in probably the last 20 years in terms of of the approach that's been taken by the current members of the court.
So I don't know if that answers your question, but it's one of those things where we can't necessarily get into specific questions that may come before the court, because obviously, the right of privacy and that question around specifically Georgia's six week abortion ban is still alive, controversy and will be coming back up to the Georgia Supreme Court at some point in time.”
“Well, okay.”
-
“So then I'll ask you, miracle, if we're speaking more generally, how do you think that this current makeup of the court is deciding cases?”
“The current makeup of the court is deciding cases in a more conservative leaning fashion, more in line with what does the US Constitution provide as opposed to what does the Georgia Constitution provides?
You can look at the US Constitution that's been like the floor, the rights that are the basic rights that we're guaranteed to wear. Georgia is more of a ceiling, so we have more rights, such as the right to privacy that Jen spoke about a moment ago, which has been a right that's been recognized in Georgia well before it was recognized in other states.
So right now, what we're seeing is a court that is more conservative leaning and trying to read both constitutions, line and line, as opposed to recognizing that Georgia actually provides us with more.”
-
“And I feel like you all have been warning about what is coming down the line to the Georgia Supreme Court.
And while I know you cannot prejudge a case, the way I'll phrase it is, what do you think is most concerning to Georgians of what could be upcoming?”
“What's top of mind, obviously, is redistricting, right. And the Voting Rights Act, which was basically neutered by the US Supreme Court.
And that's what's really interesting in not prejudging at all. But those challenges to maps and districting are now going to become coming to the state courts.
You know, for years, really, those challenges have gone to the federal courts because they were always brought under the Voting Rights Act, which is a federal statute. That makes sense. Right.
So the Georgia courts really have not had to tangle with those issues in terms of how should the maps be drawn? Are there any parameters or guide rails?
You know, how far can can legislators go, especially when you're talking about impacting people's right to vote.
And so that is definitely going to be coming up in terms of Georgia courts, because now that the federal court and specifically the US Supreme Court has basically shut the door to the courthouse, the federal courthouse, for those challenges, really the only recourse that people will have or going to be state courts, and those challenges will ultimately make their way up to the Supreme Court.
So that's going to open up a whole new area, really, of case law and precedent that really will be kind of continuing forward and, and really impact, you know, politically, what is the state going to look like? And, and how important is the right to vote in this state. And are we going to protect it or are we not?”
“And Phil, may I add that and going across the state and speaking with Georgians, one thing that I've been hearing a lot of concern about is people are now starting to kind of zone in on the fact that federal rights are protections that we believed we had are being taken away. Right.
And so now they're seeing that it's having a ripple effect.
So I think people are just concerned in general about what will our state look like as more federal protections get stripped away. So rights in general, I think, are at the forefront of Georgians voting rights, your right to privacy, you know, right to who you want to love and marry.
Really, whatever you whatever you care about, right?”
“That's miracle. That's basically what you're saying. Whatever you care about is is that issue in this election, right?”
“Yeah, exactly.
So that's what I think is most concerning to Georgians right now, is realizing that that baseline that we thought we had an understanding about from a federal protection perspective is now being slowly pulled back.
And so people are like, well, what's going to happen next? What will be sent to the States next for each state to individually decide?
And I think that will have a huge impact ultimately on where people choose to stay, to live, to raise their families.”
-
“And these next set of questions will probably be somewhat tied together, because I do I do think that a lot of people are going to be interested in, you know, what can you say to voters who want to know where you stand on, let's say, reproductive rights first?”
“Well, you know, we can talk about our personal belief systems. Look, I have a pretty long record in terms of of my beliefs.
I've always believed because it was what the US Supreme Court said, which was women had a fundamental right to autonomy and to making the most private decisions when it comes to their bodies and their families and their health.
That doesn't just go away, you know, just because, you know, four dudes said it should or whatever.
I mean, you know, a fundamental right is a fundamental right. And from my perspective, that's my core belief that, you know, that I should be able to have control over my body, especially when it comes to to the most private decision making.
And definitely my daughter should. I mean, she's 17 years old and, you know, it's just a scary thing. And I know miracle kind of feels the same way. I mean, she has a daughter as well.”
“I will add to that feel that I'm a breast cancer survivor. I'm celebrating ten years this year, and it truly is a celebration because it was a very tough journey to get to the other side of it.
And so women's health care, health care in general, and making tough decisions, I know what that feels like, having to have had to make those tough decisions with my own health care.
And I personally believe that one should be able to make decisions about their health care with their God, their doctor, and with their self. Those are your personal decisions that affect your life.
And so those are my personal beliefs. I do have a daughter. She's four years old, and it's a bit astonishing to me that my four year old is growing up in a world now where she has less rights than what I was born into.
And when you think about just rights in general for women, my generation is really the only generation of women that have had our whole slate of rights afford it to us, and now we're at a point where we're starting to see some of those rights, where it looks like we're regressing as opposed to progressing forward in time.
And that's a bit concerning.”
-
“And so I wanted to to hear from that because I want to pair it to this, this other thing that this, this, this whole race is kind of turned into, which is if people highlighting that, you know, you have these personal opinions and these these takes, and it does feel like Republicans and certain figures are trying to make that disqualifying that your humans that also are in this position, rather than kind of just a name on a piece of paper.
You have Chief Justice John Roberts recently saying, you know, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court judges are not political actors, you know, saying decisions might be unpopular, but they're based on the Constitution.
Jen, your opponent kind of said in a different way in a recent interview, said as a judge, she really tries to, quote, stay in her lane, which some have taken as saying, you or y'all should stay in your lanes.
And so my, my initial question is, what do you say to that?
And also what do you say to the argument that people in this position are political actors or you are or anyone is?”
“This is what's been interesting through this process.
I think when a court, especially Chief Justice Roberts, said, you know, they're not political actors. Look, they may not be political actors in the sense, especially the US Supreme Court level. They don't run for office. Right? That is different here in this state.
But the US Supreme Court, they don't run for office. But the decisions that they make absolutely have political impact, whether we're talking about the VRA, redistricting, whatever.
And I think, you know, we all we have to do is look at what happened at the Virginia Supreme Court level, where we literally had a statewide election invalidated by four members of the Virginia Supreme Court who were appointed by Republicans, right.
For people because they were appointed by Republicans who had a specific ideology, basically turned around a fair and free election of the or the entire state of Virginia.
So when folks try to say, you just need to stay in your lane, I want to say, I know exactly what the lane is.
And the thing is, if people aren't willing and able to talk about their belief systems and their values, you may want to ask yourself, why is that right?
Why aren't people willing to answer questions, especially when they're standing for elections?
It would be a very different thing if this weren't an elective process, where you have to go before the voters and tell them, this is why you should vote for me, because, look, if you can't talk about your beliefs, your values, who you are, what your experience is, then how is a voter able to make a meaningful choice?
I mean, like on the ballot? Is it going to be like, well, I like the name Jenn versus the other woman, or she's a redhead and you're a blond. That makes absolutely no sense.
So it's one of those things where if you have to stand for election, there's a reason for it. And that reason is you have to be accountable to the voters.
In the only way you can be accountable to the voters is to be able to talk about what your judicial philosophy is, what your belief system is, and if you have made some decisions, you have to be able to to, you know, stand up and kind of say, this is why I did it.
And then if people like that, great, they can vote for you. And if they don't, they can vote for the Challenger.
And Miracle.”
-
“I mean, your opponent specifically is I mean, a former Republican state senator. So do you think people that are throwing out this argument, they're being shortsighted or hypocritical?”
“I do think that they're being shortsighted and hypocritical.
You're everyone's record speaks for themselves. Right. So one thing that I have been urging individuals to do is just to look us up.
You can look at what he did before he came onto the court to be a judge. You can also look at what my career has been.
My career has been one of serving the people of this state at the highest level, and going after big corporations who've harmed them in some of the hardest moments of their lives.
I think it's vitally important that individuals know who you're voting for. You shouldn't just vote just to do it. It needs to be a meaningful vote, right?
And one way for people to know who they're voting for is to have these types of conversations and discourses the same way that they're interviewing with individuals and talking at a very high level, not getting into the weeds of their personal beliefs.
They actually can talk about their personal beliefs. There's nothing that stops judicial candidates or sitting judges from talking about what you personally believe, because as a judge, you should be able to and you're supposed to be able to separate that from the cases that come before you and not prejudging a matter. Right.
And so they should know that talking about your personal beliefs does not equate to prejudging a case that will come before the court.
But a lot of times people don't want to talk about their personal beliefs, because it may be it may not be in line with what the electorate feels is most important.
So I think that it's important that we have these conversations, that that people get pushed to be able to tell Georgians, what do you believe about important matters.”
-
“And an important matter that you all have brought up? I mean, how would you say Louisiana vehicle is going to impact your job as a state Supreme Court judge?”
“So I will take the car that I'm from Louisiana. That's where I was originally born and stayed until I was in high school, when I moved to Georgia.
And I was a bit saddened to just see what the Federal Court did.
And Calais and what we've seen now is a big scramble. I have a lot of family members in the state who have been trying to figure out what will elections look like for years to come, and so now we know that that's going to ultimately come to Georgia with what the special session that Governor Kemp calls this week.
And so it will be a matter of seeing what our legislature ultimately does.
That's when those three branches of government really start to come into play, right? You have the legislative, the executive and ultimately the judicial branch.
So right now it's going through two branches of government the legislative, the ultimately the executive. And at some point it will land at the judicial branch.
And that will be based upon what the facts of the case are at that time and what the law and our Constitution says.
And so I think it's vitally important that we know who the judges are on the court that will be ultimately handling and deciding those cases.”
-
“And I do want to ask, I mean, do you do you see all's candidacy and and getting elected as kind of a step one to a larger plan to, to hopefully even out the Georgia Supreme Court?
Because I imagine you have to, to a certain degree, hedge expectations, because if you both get elected and the likely makeup of would be considered, I know that there's no D's and R's in front of the names, but would be kind of seen six three conservative.
Is is this kind of the first step to 2028, where three of Kemp's appointees all of a sudden come up for reelection and all of a sudden Georgia could actually see a much different Supreme Court in 2028.
Do you see that as kind of like, I don't I don't know if you would say the vision or the goal?”
“Well, I think it's definitely within reach.
Let me say that it's one of those things where, look, a lot of people have pushed back on miracle and I for running.
This was not people weren't very happy about it. I'll have to say that, you know, you just don't do this. I mean, that's what we were told.
You don't run against a sitting Supreme Court justice. It's not just done.
And I'm sure you've heard that it hasn't even successfully been done since 1922, and it's definitely not been done by two women who just, you know, who's taken the last three months to to really try to take on the system.
Look, I look at it as kind of we're going in, we're doing this because we think it's the right thing. We think it's necessary.
And if we're successful, or even if one of us is successful or even if we're not successful, I think that that we've really, really put a marker out there in terms of this is something that can be done and should be done because it's absolutely necessary in light of what's happening at the US Supreme Court level.
And we know it can be done, because all we have to do is look at West, where they took a, you know, five to far right conservative. I don't even know conservative is the word court.
And within three years it's a five to pro-democracy pro rights court. It's pretty impressive.
And in that really is having a positive impact on the people of the state of Wisconsin. So it's a it's a good role model.
And, you know, we'll see what happens on Tuesday. And and we'll see if anybody else wants to kind of jump into the fray in two years.”
-
“That is something that I've heard y'all talking about of people getting not being happy about it. And I'm just personally interested in that.
Is it a bit of a club of I'm going to step on toes and this may affect me in the legal profession?”
“Oh yeah, essentially it really is.
And it's very disheartening because ultimately our state's highest court belongs to the people of Georgia.
It's not a birthright position. It's not a position based upon who you know, where you live and what your connections are.
It's a position of service and service at the highest level to our state, and to have individuals be so off put by the fact that two very qualified candidates are offering ourselves of service and giving the opportunity back to Georgians, to elect an individual to be on your highest court is very concerning.
And I think that if for anything else, we are shining a light on the importance of following our Constitution.
Our Constitution calls for these to be elected positions. They are not by appointment only.
And so Georgians get to decide at a vital time, who do you want to serve on our state's highest court?”
“And one of the last things I want to ask.”
-
“I mean miracle your opponent said that they will stay in their position.
But Jen, I believe your opponent has been silent and you've kind of expressed concern that they will drop out if they lose, and then Kemp will just put someone in to the spot and kind of just cancel your your election.
Is that a is that a real concern right now?”
“Yeah. I mean, it's a real concern in the fact that Justice Warren has really refused to, you know, say just what should be a very easy thing, which is I'll finish out my term and I will abide by the results of the election.
I know miracle and I are going to abide by the results of the election if we lose. Right.
It doesn't seem like a very hard thing just to say that in a very straightforward way.
So the fact that she isn't, you know, willing to to say that or to answer questions around that is, is incredibly concerning to me, because the idea that, that someone thinks that they can just really basically overturn the results of a fair and free election just because they don't like the outcome, you know, should be incredibly concerning to every single voter in the state of Georgia.”
“I mean, the undoing, the willing of the will of the people seems to be going around more and more seems. To be the theme. Right? It's it's getting scary.”
-
“But on that final note, obviously one of the biggest things with us talking is early voting ends this Friday. But it is all Tuesday, right?
It's all the 19th. You're not running in November. I know that's been a big a big thing of people going. I'll vote November. It's all Tuesday, right?”
“Yes. All then we're all done on Tuesday.”
“Miracle. Jen, thank you so much for the time.”
“Thank you.”
“Phil, this was awesome.”
“Thank you. Really appreciate it.”
And so yeah thank you again to Miracle and Jen for the time. Also thank you to you for listening and watching being a part of this show.
Remember whether you're in Georgia or elsewhere, get out there, vote, be a part of the change that you want to see.
With that said, that's the end of today's Thursday Philip DeFranco show.
If you're not completely filled in, you should definitely check out the brand new episode of Crashing Out. Or maybe you missed last night's Philip DeFranco show. I got links to that in the description and on the screen, but as always, thank you for watching. I love you faces and I'll see you right back here next time.
