Spotify's Joe Rogan Controversy, Canada's Trucker Protests, and Guest Neal Kaytal

So, your AI agents

make the team that uses them more productive, right?

But if they aren't connected to other agents, or your data, or your existing workflows, how productive can they really make your teams?

Any business can add AI agents.

IBM connects your agents across your company to change how you do business.

Let's create Smart to Business, IBM.

Support for this show comes from Robinhood.

Wouldn't it be great to manage your portfolio on one platform?

With Robinhood, not only can you trade individual stocks and ETFs, you can also seamlessly buy and sell crypto at low costs.

Trade all in one place.

Get started now on Robinhood.

Trading crypto involves significant risk.

Crypto trading is offered through an account with Robinhood Crypto LLC.

Robinhood Crypto is licensed to engage in virtual currency business activity by the New York State Department of Financial Services.

Crypto held through Robinhood Crypto is not FDIC insured or SIPIC protected.

Investing involves risk, including loss of principal.

Securities trading is offered through an account with Robinhood Financial LLC, member SIPIC, a registered broker dealer.

Hi, everyone.

This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network.

I'm Kara Swisher, and I'm just asking some questions.

Hi, Scott.

And I'm the number one apolka dot artist in Wisconsin, and I'm holding from Spotify.

I don't know what that accent was.

I don't know what that is.

That was like a dead language of the Twins.

I feel like you're trying to copy John Candy, I believe.

Is that correct?

Did you see that meme?

I love that thing.

Yes, yes, I love that meme thing.

We will be getting, and we have a lot to say about the Joe Rogan situation at Spotify.

We cannot get to it yet, but Scott is going to, we got to head of steam.

We got to head of steam coming your way.

So get ready for a very intimate inside look and how we make decisions here at Pivot, which is usually panicky and drunk but that's you scott no i'm kidding well one of us is an influencer and the other is a decision maker that pretty much summarizes it's not true it's not true but we have we're going to talk to you about our issues and what we things that happened this weekend and etc and you're going to hear and we want to know what you think anyway today well we'll talk about the trouble at spotify uh a convoy of truckers causing trouble in canada and we'll speak with attorney Neil Katyal about his former boss, Justice Stephen Breyer, about what's next for the Supreme Court, specifically looking at media and tech, even though the focus is elsewhere.

But first, 5G service is inching closer to airports thanks to a new deal between the FAA and wireless carriers.

Verizon and AT ⁇ T activated their 5G networks earlier this month, but kept clear of airports at the FAA's request.

Now the FAA is shrinking that buffer zone based on what it says is more precise data.

This feels like starting your phone on the plane thing where you're going to crash it.

It was not borne out by data.

I don't know.

What do you think?

I remember being on a plane 20 years ago, and, you know, they were taxing, and I was texting, and the guy next to me, just from moment one, seemed very nervous.

Obviously, a lot of people are nervous flyers.

I get nervous flying.

And he just screamed, turn off your phone

as if, you know, it was just a foregone conclusion.

That you're taking down the plane.

Yeah, that that was it.

We're all going to die if I didn't, if I didn't stop messaging.

Yeah, I don't know.

I used to carry data with me.

And when they said it to me, I said, actually, that's not factually correct.

But I will turn it off.

I was very pleasant, but I was like, here's some data for you, and I would hand it to them.

If you look at,

look, I think you defer, and I'm on the side of big government usually, I think you defer to the FAA, because if you look at what, in addition to the fact that the connective tissue are some rules we comply with, even when they're inconvenient.

And I think the balance is out of balance out of companies pushing back on regulation.

If you look at what the FAA has accomplished, air travel is just extraordinary in terms of safety.

It is.

And when you think about the the fact that we take an aluminum tube, throw it up, you know, I used to call it the tube of death, but go ahead.

Well, it's the tube of survival, though.

If you really look at it,

we skirt it along the atmosphere at 0.8 times the speed of sound, and we get people to places more safely than it is to, I think, ride an electric scooter like 30.

The most dangerous thing about flying is the ride to the airport.

And aviation, which I'm fascinated by, they overengineer the manufacture and the inspection of these things to the point where it's like having a car that they spend a million dollars on to overengineer it.

And they demand that registered government employees show up every two weeks.

And if there's a little bit of tread taken off your tires, they make you replace all your tires.

And the result is it's the safest form of transportation across all transportation.

And it creates tremendous confidence.

It creates tremendous mobility of human and financial capital.

It's a real, the invisible infrastructure around the world is our airspace.

And I think the FAA has done an amazing job.

So I'm go, FAA.

I'm on board.

All right, whatever.

Anyway,

anyway, it's going to be, it would be this rollout of 5G, it's already full of conspiracy theories, by the way, speaking of the whole controversy around Joe Rogan, but I don't think he has one around that.

But in general, it has a lot of conspiracy theories.

And also, there are, they should pay attention to all kinds of safety concerns when they're rolling this stuff out.

A lot of the weird worries about cellular didn't pan out as much as people thought.

But it certainly, remember, there was like every week there was a different,

your brain will fry if you use a cell phone thing, and then AirPods, and then this and that.

Although the jury's out, I suppose, on all that.

Eventually, we'll figure that out.

Anyway, it's an interesting thing to do, but 5G is critical, and it's critical for our economy, and we have to do it safely.

Thank you.

This is a message from Vivid.

All right, this is an interesting one.

T-Mobile reportedly fire corporate employees who don't complete full vaccination by April 2nd.

Those who have only received one dose

as of February 21st will be placed on unpaid leave.

The policy only applies to those who work in their offices, at least occasionally.

Customer service employees who are largely on the phone will have to show proof of their first vaccine by February 21st, but won't be impacted by the mandate.

They usually deal with you on the phone.

They're not talking about people in the stores.

So

it's a really interesting

one because this Supreme Court thing that we'll talk to Neil about, for example,

businesses can do these kind of things.

They just can't be mandated by the government to do so.

But businesses are continuing to do it, interestingly enough.

Aaron Powell, well, this is the guy who wrote Jonathan Greenland, I guess, talking about Davos Man, about how CEOs claim they're filling the void around an absence of government leadership.

And they sort of are.

It's a little bit about First Amendment.

People think that if a company censors or edits or fact checks, that that's First Amendment or censorship.

No, it's not.

Corporations don't have any fidelity to the First Amendment.

It's the government that's not supposed to.

And I wear pants to work, except for right now.

That's right.

And if you show up and start...

You have pants on, right?

Correct?

Well,

it depends what you mean by that.

If spandex equals pants, then yes.

That's right, you work out before.

Hello.

But if

so they don't...

Look, I like this.

I think that corporations who tend to be, you know, at least for the most part, kind of shareholder-driven or somewhat believe in truth, the majority of people running the companies

have educations that at least respect some sort of science-based, you know, evidence-based, peer-reviewed, whatever you want to call it.

I'm a fan of this, and I don't, I don't, I would imagine, and most of the companies that have done this haven't had,

they haven't had big lockouts or pushback.

Yeah, the United guy was saying that, some others.

You know, companies should be able to do what they want in this case, especially around health issues all the time, 100%.

The government did try, but under the Biden administration, but then the Supreme Court wouldn't allow them.

So the government did try.

So you can't blame the government.

In this case, I think the best thing is

it gets so dicey when the government starts

in this case right now, but they, of course, mandate other things.

So the government should be able to mandate these things too.

But, you know, you're still going to get the pushback of my body.

It's so funny.

Many of the people who are like, it's my body, I'll do what I want with it, are anti-abortion, which is always an interesting issue.

And don't let and sort of say that.

Anyway, Scott, I mean, really, we have to get to this, the big story.

Spotify's library and MarketCak were both a little less full this week.

Neil Young pulled his albums as the singer protests Spotify's role in spreading COVID misinformation.

He cited Joe Rogan's podcast specifically.

Other musicians were following his lead.

Joni Mitchell pulled her songs, and Neil Lofgren of Crazy Horse announced that he'll cut ties with the streaming service.

The controversy has taken its toll on Spotify's stock at market close on Friday.

If you look at it today, it was down about 12%.

That's $4 billion of value.

On Sunday, Spotify published, sort of acquiesced a little bit, published its rules around acceptable content, which it had not done.

It said it will add an advisory to any podcast episode that deals with COVID.

Very unclear and milquetoasty response.

But as The Verge reports, an internal review at Spotify found that Rogan's episodes, quote, didn't meet the threshold for removal, unquote.

Joe Rogan went them further and actually gave a pretty, put a pretty good comment on Instagram saying that he would accept the rules that would have the advisories and also said that he had to do better.

I would like to talk to some people that have differing opinions on those podcasts in the future.

He was actually more contrite than Spotify was, although Spotify spent a lot of time pretending it was not a platform and kept saying words like content.

He didn't want to be a content censor when actually they're a media company.

It's called editing.

So, Scott, I'm going to let you go because we had a big,

a mini-crisis within our thing of what to do about the situation in Spotify because we're sort of repulsed by their lack of any kind of responsibility.

Yeah, so I called you on Saturday or Sunday, and I said, I've thought about Saturday.

I wasn't answering the phone.

Saturday.

And I said, I'm thinking about taking my other podcast, Prop G,

off of Spotify.

And you asked

a lot of very thoughtful questions.

And then we had a lot of conversation, including with our CEO, Jim Bankoff, who I just want to add is like.

basically incredibly supportive and errors on the side of generosity in almost every contact I've had with him.

Yep, he's very thoughtful.

And I've been just thinking a lot about this.

And I think let's start off with where you and I agree.

And I think we agree on most of this.

We don't think Joe Rogan should be censored.

We don't think this is cancel culture.

We don't think this is call-out culture.

We think the dissenter's voice is really important.

For me, this is about capitalism.

And the wonderful thing about capitalism is you get to vote with your time, your treasure, and your talent around

people and companies that do or do not share share your values.

And when I think about Spotify and Joe Rogan, I really don't like the fact that they're trying to fall back on this.

Well, we're a platform just as Apple distributes Steve Bannon, who we find

distasteful.

We believe that people have a right to be heard.

This is like, this is, Joe Rogan is to Spotify what iOS or the iPhone is to Apple.

This is their content.

They control this.

He's an employee.

Well, no, he's not, but go ahead.

And he's not.

Well,

okay, but he's exclusive to Spotify.

They paid him.

They own it.

They have made a conscious decision to make it.

You are saying they're a media company and should act like it instead of hiding behind the platform skirts, essentially.

You summarized it perfectly, and I was trying to look for yourself.

I shall find it while you keep going along.

But effectively, I think what you have is, I think we on the left, and we suffer from this both sidism.

And I think there's some both sidism here that is really dangerous.

And that is, it's really important to have a conversation and listen to dissenters around the lockdown, the severity of the lockdown, the impact it takes on mental health.

Masking deserves a lot of interesting discussion.

When it comes to vaccinations,

I think the other side here has been proven over and over to have absolutely no merit.

And I also don't think it's as innocent as people would like to believe what's going on here.

And that is, I have found when I look at Joe Rogan's content that he has methodically and thoughtfully and meticulously meticulously created a false balance.

And that is he has brought on people that have a thin enough veneer.

And then he brings on other individuals that's, in my view, say things that are just

entirely false and creates doubt around something that we have so much evidence are

incredibly effective.

And the result is, and it's just one small point, but the result is a nation that's at 65% vaccination, not 90%, that I believe evidence shows is going to result in a lot of unnecessary death, disease, and disability.

And people will say, when I was talking to people, well, isn't this kind of performative, Scott?

And I thought, well, okay, granted, I'm sort of building a glass house here because people will find inconsistency and they'll find misinformation on Apple and Amazon and probably Vox.

But when you have something of this influence and this reach, and you have

You have what I'd call the sense of false balance and something that is just so important.

and you don't have what I'd call a certain level of fact-checking.

And I'm evolving around this issue.

When I was writing my newsletter and I had 2,500 followers, I would say, oh, Tesla is worth more than the entire auto industry.

And now that I have 250,000 followers, I fact-check my shit.

And people come back, and I have three people looking at every piece of data and go, no, it's worth the top eight auto.

You can't say that.

And as his influence has grown,

I think Spotify has more

obligation, is more compelled to fact-check something as important as vaccine misinformation.

And in addition, we don't have to go to war over this.

I did not add Chick-fil-A my entire adult life because I didn't like some of their social commentary.

It doesn't mean I hate them.

It doesn't mean I think they're bad people.

I like the people at Spotify.

We're friends with some of them.

I hope that if we decide to leave the platform, we decide to go back on it at some point.

It doesn't need to be a jihad.

It's basically saying, I'm not comfortable right now cashing their check.

And let's be clear, they mean a lot more to us than we mean to them.

But the wonderful thing about capitalism, and it's already having some impact, they did put out a statement.

I thought it was a bit of a bullshit statement.

You summarized it perfectly in my view.

But there really doesn't, in my view, it all started with this cancer of creating, bring in the dissenter's voice around Sandy Hook.

There's another side that believes this was a hoax.

And to give that evidence, that was what I call massive severity towards.

What he tends to do, let me just interrupt for a second.

What they tend to do is sort of nodding at

the anti-vaxxers, essentially, and being tougher on the science people, as you should be, by the way.

But

it is, and I don't like the expression, oh, you're giving this person oxygen.

Oh, you're doing, you need to do the same exact tough job.

If you want to veer that way and sort of lean into these conspiracy theories, you have to do, and again, he says he's not a

journalist, et etc but he has influence and i think he that that's why i preferred his statement to anyone else's because he was like i thought i was just sort of this man on the street guy and hey i didn't know how i happened into this and here i am pig and shit like well you're a pig and shit so you need to do something you know what i mean like i think that's one of the things and i do i i do see you know how different is he than larry king etc who didn't may have expertise in his area or this and that or whoever but i don't think he wants to become rush limbaugh i don't that's not my sense And then that was where some of this was headed, which is sort of just false.

And, and, but away from Joe Rogan, I like a lot of his shows.

I have to say, they're very fun.

Some of them are a million hours long, so I don't listen to them all the way through.

And that's the way he likes it.

It works for him.

That's great.

I think the attention should completely be on Spotify.

You know what I mean?

Like to be able just the way New York Times or Vox Media monitors us, right?

They monitor us.

They do.

And it's not censorship.

They're editing us.

They're a publisher.

It's their responsibility to do so.

And we can decide what we want to do if they say something to us, right?

That's the whole point.

I think what I wrote was: it's interesting that that thing once being called editing for facts became a content censor.

Well, not interesting, just word washing by tech folks who want all the power and money and none of the responsibility when things get dicey, as they always get.

Spotify is an obvious media company bringing all kinds of creators and paying them to make content exclusively for the platform,

not especially podcasts, not unlike Amazon becoming a platform and a retailer.

And this is from Variety, I quoted.

Rogan, whose exclusive multi-year distribution deal with Spotify is for his podcast SME worth $100 million, hosted the number one most listened to podcast on Spotify in 2021.

Spotify and others are platforms when it suits them and media companies when it suits them.

Personally, I would also like to be a money-gushing chameleon, but I like my media to try at least be factual.

No, we don't always get it right, by the way, and that costs.

And I think they have to stop pretending they really wanted us to act like they were something else and they're just not.

And there's

less so than Joe Rogan.

It's their responsibility if they do a deal with Joe Rogan, just the way Fox is tolerating

Tucker Carlson and not doing anything about it.

And therefore, they get shit for it.

And they deserve it.

And they can still not do anything about it, but they deserve to get shit for it for sure.

Thank you.

Yeah,

I think you summarized it perfectly, that there's an incorrect inflation of censorship with fact-checking and that the onus of fact checking goes up as your influence grows and the gravity of the situation increases.

If you get the market capitalization of Apple or even if you get political statements or facts incorrect, that's meaningfully wrong or meaningfully damaged.

When you have misinformation that is not fact-checked around vaccinations, that is profoundly wrong.

And so the question is, what's the ask?

And by the way, capitalism is we get to choose who we rent our financial and human capital to, who we get to work with, what products we buy or don't buy.

And that's wonderful.

And the question is, do you want to be subscribing to Spotify?

Do you want to

have your content posted on Spotify and cash their check?

And I'm flexing my capitalist muscles that I believe that Spotify should recognize that this individual reaches hundreds of millions of people.

He is, you know, as goes Joe Rogan, as goes Spotify.

And there really isn't any topic more serious that warrants more fact-checking than vaccines and any surrounding data around that would cause people to be vaccine hesitant.

And so it just feels like you need to command the space you occupy.

Should they censor him?

No,

that's not censorship.

We get fact-checked all the time about stuff.

We get stopped and we say, no, you can't, that's not true, Scott.

And that's the way it should be.

And as our,

And if we get something wrong about the size of a lake, okay, that slips, that's fine.

If we get something wrong about the Supreme Court, they fact-check it.

But I think this stuff warrants a new level of fact-checking.

And

I don't buy this sort of ah, shucks.

I'm Joe Rogan.

I think he has been very calculated at creating what I call this false balance.

And I think it's been very methodical.

I think it's been very damaging.

And just as people might say, well, Scott, you're full of shit and you've spread misinformation.

guess what?

You have the right not to listen to me, not to support Vox, not to buy my advertising.

CNBC decided they didn't want to work with me any longer.

And guess what?

That's their right.

We live in a capitalist society.

So without sounding, you know, people say, well, it's performative.

It's not performative if you're willing to put your money where your mouth is.

It's performing.

Yeah, but we're not doing that.

So one of the things, this is what we discussed over the weekend is what to do about this.

I think they have made concessions here.

I think they absolutely in terms of publishing it.

Now, if they continue and it keeps misbehaving, it's sort of, it's not unlike Netflix and Dave Chappelle, right?

So they stuck with them.

And people can either get rid of it or not be on Netflix, et cetera, et cetera.

It didn't quite blossom the way this did, which was interesting.

You know what I mean?

Like it didn't quite go the same length.

There was a lot of noise and a lot of what the hell, Dave Chappelle, with trans people.

In this case, that was what it was about.

And it didn't hit them quite as much as this has.

And it's interesting.

I wrote a column that said I didn't think it was going to have an effect.

I am surprised they publish these things.

Having covered Daniel Eck for so long, I can't believe that they're publishing rules.

That's not something he likes.

I know.

He's been one of the most anything goes kind of guy.

And I have to say, I find his products great.

I think he's really inventive.

But it's one of the things he's sort of went on and on about over the years.

I think this is a significant shift.

And I think it's put them on notice, which I, and I think that I do, I don't think Rogan was just doing an oshox.

He could have done any number of things, including fuck you.

I'm going to say what I want.

These people are trying to cancel me.

He didn't do any of that, which I find, you know, maybe I don't necessarily sort of trust but verify kind of thing.

So he has not done what I thought he might do, which is be obstreperous.

He was complimentary.

He

said he got it wrong.

It was a great piece.

His Instagram post, it was likable, came across as self-aware.

But I'll be honest with you, Tara.

Well, here's the thing.

And again, I'm cynical, glass half empty.

I have found if you want to predict people's future behavior, and when I say behavior, I mean their actions as opposed to their words, that you should go three years out and say, what series of actions would lead them to get the absolute most amount of money, but not put in jail?

And then reverse engineer, and those are the actions.

That's a good default position or prediction.

And here's the scary part about all of this, is that I believe

if Joe Rogan were to continue to create false balance around this important topic

and Spotify were forced to kick him off the network,

it would likely trigger, based on what I know about this deal, an acceleration of all payment to him.

And here's another secret.

He was underpaid.

Spotify got the deal of the century here.

They paid him $100 million.

So he says, okay, I continue to bring on the other side.

The dissenter's voice is important.

It continues to reflect a level of misinformation that can be loosely but correlated to vaccine hesitancy, which creates death, disease, and disability.

And Spotify says, gosh, we just can't handle this.

We got to fire you.

And a lot of media companies decided to fire people.

I think his deal is so ironclad that it would accelerate the remaining $50, $70 million.

And then what happens?

Truth Social shows up with a $2.5 billion market capitalization and says, we'll give you a quarter of a billion dollars to be exclusive to Truth Social.

I think, I think, being very dollar-driven here, he stands to make a quarter of a billion dollars in the next 12 years by posting increasingly brazen misinformation.

I'd have to say I don't because I do think he could have done any number of things here and everyone would have cheered him on all his followers.

I think, here's what I do think.

If someone's parents die of COVID because of things things he said and they can directly sue him, they should sue him.

Same thing with Spotify.

They're a media company.

They deserve liability if they can make the case, right?

That I think should happen if that is the case.

If that is the case and it can be proven, I got a lot of tweets of people saying, you know, a lot of stuff that they heard on Joe Rogan's show made them this, this, and this.

I get it.

Same thing with Fox News.

They're being sued right now, but they're equal to Fox News.

They're equal to anyone.

By the way, Sarah Palin's still in the New York Times right now.

She's also spreading COVID in restaurants across New York City.

But

I don't know if you saw those stories.

It's kind of like bizarre.

But she can do that.

Kind of marks the age.

Right, exactly.

She, not the restaurant thing, because that's appalling, Sarah Palin.

You're an asshole to do that to servers, et cetera.

But

she can sue the New York Times.

I think she will lose, but she can do it.

And so should people be able to here.

So I don't think

it's consequence-free.

But Spotify has got to stop pretending and making us think they're not a media company.

They're a media media company, and they can and should be sued when they make mistakes, if it's done malevolently.

And in this case, you're putting out a future where that is malevolently, right?

Doing it for the money, doing it for this and that.

So that's one thing.

And then the second thing is that they...

They deserve for these artists.

Someone was like, oh, these artists shouldn't do this.

They don't have a great relationship with artists because of these low payouts for most of them.

Lots of artists have kept their music off Spotify pre-COVID, Taylor Swift, Prince, Jay-Z, Beyonce, Adele, Coldplay, and done deals with them.

I think they didn't have a great relationship with their artists.

So many of them piled on here.

And of course, there's sort of the golden oldies who did it.

And you didn't hear from Taylor Swift or whatever.

And you have Harry and Megan Markle saying we're concerned, concerned, concerned.

But that's okay.

That's okay.

And Brene Brown didn't say anything.

She just stopped making podcasts and said, I will, she didn't even say, I'll be back.

I'm just taking a pause now.

And she was sort of interesting.

They can't not have consequences

as to what happened here.

Now, they have, let's just say, be clear, to give them fairness, they've removed 20,000 COVID-related podcast episodes, violating its policies.

And so

that's fine.

And they also deserve the consequences of the market, like you were saying.

Apple Music is now using, calling itself the home of Neil Young.

He's getting

one last dig in at Spotify saying the sound quality is better on Apple and Amazon.

The 90s alt rock brain belly changed their channel art to the banner that reads delete spotify they should they deservedly should get things like this and they should get consumer reaction and people can decide completely i i i ended my premium contract my kids had already left they thought spotify sucked compared to apple music in terms of sound quality um i'm not paying them money at this moment in time and i like spot trust me i like spotify um but and it's i like the lists i like what i have on there i use it for clara but i'm not just not i just don't want to.

I'm just thinking, it's distasteful how they've reacted.

I feel better about Joe Rogan than I do about Spotify.

All right, you go ahead But you brought up a couple interesting issues The first is Sarah Palin is going to have her day in court with New York Times I don't think she's going to get very far because you have to prove malice but What's said every day on Twitter and Facebook about Sarah Palin is much more vicious and you could argue much more defamatory, but she won't even get a hearing in court because of 230.

I don't believe that Spotify is protected by 230 because they have produced this content.

And 230 doesn't protect you from the content you produce.

It protects you from the content posted on your platform by users.

So they are subject, they could and might be subject to lawsuits.

The other thing here is that this is how capitalism should work.

And that is I can go to Apple Music.

I can go to Amazon Music.

I have a choice.

So I can have some influence with my consumer decisions.

I don't have any choice with Facebook or Google.

What's happening at Spotify is what is supposed to happen.

I think it's a group of good people.

Let's give Joe Rogan the benefit of the doubt.

And I think they will ideally change when they see people say, you know what, I have other options, so I'm not going to eat your chicken sandwich.

The Big Mac works for me right now.

There is a lot of competition.

And they will rethink these issues.

They will rethink these issues.

Whereas with these monopolies, no, we'll just continue to radicalize young men and depressed teen girls because guess what?

You don't have any goddamn choice.

And so we aren't incented or motivated.

So I think this is bringing up a host of good issues.

It also, it doesn't have to, our discourse doesn't have to become totally coarse.

You know, Bloomberg, and I always come back to me, came back to me and said, we can only work with you if you comply to a

certain guidelines.

You need to tone it down somewhere.

Back on your clothes.

And I said, I'm not going to.

By the way, nice post this week of you in a wig.

I don't even understand it, but go ahead.

Go ahead.

Oh, Elizabeth Hans, you like that.

You like that.

Hello, Hot.

A lot of mixed emotions.

Did you feel comp did you feel a little bit more?

Here's what happened.

Amanda goes, oh, Scott.

And I'm like, what did he do?

From across the room.

I was making French toast.

And she's like, what did he do?

I go, what did he do?

But

this doesn't have to be a war.

It can be, and by the way, we decided to park Company in Plumberg, and I still like them, and I'd like to think they still like me.

And guess what?

We're going to find other ways to work together.

Spotify, I adore your service.

Everyone I've met there, I really like.

I expect to work with you again and be aware of it.

We're not going off of it yet, but consumer.

This is a consumer.

Yeah.

Well, I don't know if you've heard there's two podcasts, and I control the other one.

So explain what you're doing.

Well, I'm going to,

look,

I'm going to take Prof G down to Spotify.

I expect and hope to put it back on sometime.

But here's the thing, as you get older,

one of the ways I'm trying to lead my life, and I realize I'm building a glass house around myself, and a lot of people will do a fantastic job of finding where I am inconsistent.

So bring it.

But if you're going to rail against big tech, you have an obligation to do your homework.

And if elected representatives call you or you want to be thoughtful about it, you got to do your homework.

If you want to rail against the cartel that is big ed,

you have to get involved and try and make things better.

And if you're constantly railing, as I do, against anti-vaccine information, you shouldn't cash the check of someone who is creating false balance around vaccine misinformation.

So, but it's not to say, it's not to say we have to hate each other.

It's just for the moment, there's not a fit.

And I hope it changes because I love the service.

I benefit from working with them.

And you have a more measured and thoughtful approach.

I tend to be more ready-fire aim.

And so what you have suggested in this kind of segue is that we ask our audience

for their viewpoint and do a sort of like,

let me pose it out there.

No, we're not.

Should I sell my Twitter stock?

Should I sell $10 billion of my Twitter stock?

That's the poll.

Actually, I have an idea.

Let's take a poll and stick it up our ass.

Too much?

No, but we do want to hear from listeners because we had, I don't think we should pull off and be performing at this moment when they have responded.

And so did Rogan.

Scott thinks, I don't know, he thinks he's going to pull prof G, but is being respectful of my wishes here at Pivot,

we get the problem.

It's a real conundrum, right?

When do you decide to go off of things?

Like, I don't use Facebook.

I suspect some of our stuff is on there.

I don't even know.

I don't even know how we use Facebook.

Vox does.

Maybe we should ask them not to.

I have continually asked them to take Facebook advertising off of our podcasts.

Again, we don't have as much.

We could, I guess, just walk.

I advertise on Facebook.

There's some inconsistency for us.

There you go.

So, I mean, it's an interesting thing.

So, we would love to hear from you because we were conundrumed all weekend and trying to figure it out.

And we're not being

a minute.

We're not like the virtue signaling.

We're worried.

We're confused.

I want to do more than put a black square on my Instagram feed saying Black Lives Matter.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, good for you.

But here's the thing.

We're an hour long.

See, at times that the average song is three minutes.

So if we were to pull our content, it actually, in my opinion, it has more impact on Spotify from a listener and consumption standpoint than Neil Young.

We don't have the brand of Neil Young.

But yes, yes.

I don't know.

People don't listen all the way through.

Yeah, that's assuming everyone listens all the way through.

And look, you're throwing a pebble at a pyramid, but as my mother said, how do you eat an elephant?

One bite at a time.

Your mother said that.

Anyways, I think this is a really, I've learned a lot over the weekend.

I appreciate how thoughtful you've been around it and appreciate how supportive Ox has been.

But, you know, I'm sick of barking at the fucking moon and pissing in the well all day.

Kara, need to be more consistent.

I'm going to wait and see what they do.

I am heartened by that.

I am.

I'm not easily fooled, but I think he could have gone.

The 12 different ways that guy could have gone, and maybe he still will do it.

And by the way, he did this.

See, I think he's going to do what he did.

He complained about Twitter, went over to Getter, and then talked about Getter like it was Faghazi and insulted it.

I think, I think, like you, he's quite emotional, but he could have been very emotional here, and he was not.

That was a thought.

I thought his video was great.

It made me like him more.

It made me be more hopeful.

I like a lot of his shows.

It's just around this health thing.

He's got to clean it up.

He's got to clean it up.

And it's not censoring to say so.

It's like, if you're going to have on like, you know, crazy one and crazy two of anti-vaxxers, you need to like give them a hard time and question them.

And listen, by the way, it happens on a lot of stuff where people just let things go, like get let things go.

And by the way, I let things go in interviews.

Every interview I do, they're like, you didn't press this person on this and you did this.

You were too, the Elizabeth Warren mom was a real reveler.

Like, you're too mean to her.

You're not mean enough.

And I was like, oh, good heavens.

Like, you know what I mean?

I get it, Joe Hogan.

I get the problem.

problem and you aren't a professional but and it's hard enough when you're a professional not to do the exact right thing or ask the tougher questions as many as you can but you at least have to fact check on critical health issues you have to it is incumbent upon you you can also again have a debate about masks you can have a debate about lockdowns you can have a debate about vaccine mandates you can that is something i get it i get that one but

efficacy of vaccines and walking down crazy highway for treatment is very dangerous to the rest of society.

And therefore, because you're so powerful, you have a higher responsibility.

You just do.

And saying fuck you to the man all the time, you can't do it.

You just can't.

You just don't, you can't.

Or else you can be sued.

That's what happens to you.

It plays into this larger narrative around the...

Fuck you to the man

when you're the man.

Well, we don't have the USSR.

We don't have the draft.

Young man, average age of his listenership is 24.

And I benefit in playing to some of this myself.

Men are violent and like conflict.

They're like Tranosaurus Rexes.

They like movement.

They're drawn to movement and violence.

And so we need a new enemy.

And unfortunately, we've decided that the government is the enemy and we've conflated vaccines and the government for some reason.

And I think people find that it's

macho somehow, especially when they see Aaron Rodgers doing it.

Yeah.

That somehow it's masculine to say, I'm young, I'm strong, I don't need a vaccine.

I'm not buying into this narrative.

No one's going to force me.

My body.

It's really unfortunate.

Yeah.

Yeah, it is.

It is.

You know what?

You can't rail against the man when you actually are the man.

And by the way, not all men believe it.

My sons listen to it.

Listen to Joe Rogan.

One of them called him a douche nozzle.

But they like the weed jokes.

And they like when he's funny and Fear Factory and stuff like that.

Talented man.

Very much so.

But

also, he's not far right.

He's pretty, you know, he's centrist on a lot of issues.

I'm trying to do him in a really unusual way on things that he's not, he didn't do.

But he's definitely very dangerous here,

even if he doesn't mean it.

He can be very dangerous.

And again, Spotify should be able to be sued just like a media company is.

So please line up if you think that.

Anyway, we'll see what's going to happen.

We would love your response.

We would love what you think.

We will hear and play these responses.

And if you want to call them, you know, send them an emails, whatever.

We are trying to figure it out ourselves, just like.

everybody else.

We're trying to muscle through these issues.

Muscle through these issues and not let them know.

Can we stay together until the kids are out of the house?

Or do we just call, do we just fold our tent now?

No, Scott, you've been very, I really respect your feelings about this.

Anyway, let's go on a quick break.

We come back.

Elon Musk throws his weight behind a convoy of truck drivers.

Then we'll talk to a friend of Pivot about tech and the Supreme Court.

As a founder, you're moving fast towards product market fit, your next round, or your first big enterprise deal.

But with AI accelerating how quickly startups build and ship, security expectations are also coming in in faster, and those expectations are higher than ever.

Getting security and compliance right can unlock growth or stall it if you wait too long.

Vanta is a trust management platform that helps businesses automate security and compliance across more than 35 frameworks like SOC2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and more.

With deep integrations and automated workflows built for fast-moving teams, Vanta gets you audit ready fast and keeps you secure with continuous monitoring as your models, infrastructure, and customers evolve.

That's why fast-growing startups like Langchain, Ryder, and Cursor have all trusted Vanta to build a scalable compliance foundation from the start.

Go to Vanta.com slash Vox to save $1,000 today through the Vanta for Startups program and join over 10,000 ambitious companies already scaling with Vanta.

That's vanta.com/slash box to save $1,000 for a limited time.

Support for Pivot comes from LinkedIn.

From talking about sports, discussing the latest movies, everyone is looking for a real connection to the people around them.

But it's not just person to person, it's the same connection that's needed in business.

And it can be the hardest part about B2B marketing, finding the right people, making the right connections.

But instead of spending hours and hours scavenging social media feeds, you can just tap LinkedIn ads to reach the right professionals.

According to LinkedIn, they have grown to a network of over 1 billion professionals, making it stand apart from other ad buys.

You can target your buyers by job title, industry, company role, seniority skills, and company revenue, giving you all the professionals you need to reach in one place.

So you can stop wasting budget on the wrong audience and start targeting the right professionals only on LinkedIn ads.

LinkedIn will even give you a hundred dollar credit on your next campaign so you can try it for yourself.

Just go to linkedin.com/slash pivot pod.

That's linkedin.com/slash pivot pod.

Terms and conditions apply only on LinkedIn ads.

Scott, we're back for our second big story.

Thousands of protesters gathered outside of Canada's parliament on Saturday to protest vaccine mandates.

Here we are again.

The protest was originally spurred by a convey of truck drivers who set out from British Columbia.

The truckers drew support from some unlikely, maybe likely sources, Joe Rogan, Elon Musk, and Russell Brand.

He was really all in a bother.

He's got quite a popular podcast, by the way.

All made a video podcast.

I don't know what it is.

All made their support known through posts and tweets.

Rogan spoke about the convoy with some wildly inflated numbers.

Get your facts rate, Joe.

Many lawmakers weren't even in town for the protests because Parliament wasn't in session.

On Monday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tested positive for COVID, if you can believe it.

E-I-E.

So anyway, so this is, you know, this is going to go on until this.

COVID thing is over.

Canada does have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world.

It's 80% and truck diarrhea is 90%.

So this group is a very small group of people who just are

out.

It's perfect for someone like Elon Musk who likes to cause all, again, the man causing, telling people to fight against the man, I guess.

So what thinks you of this?

Is it just a paper tiger bullshit thing?

I know almost nothing about it.

And it's like one of these things where I'm like, I don't want to even.

I mean, okay.

Again, going back to this notion that somehow we've conflated masculinity and anti-vax stance, so we pick ice truckers.

I mean,

what's next?

We're going to, we're going to, you know, get,

I mean, at some point, do we just like want to salute, where we're going to find out that testosterone is anti-vax?

It's just, it all feels so macho and weird.

Yeah.

Ice truckers.

We support the ice truckers.

I don't know if they're ice truckers.

They're just truckers.

They call it truckistan, which would be like truckistan.

Truckistan.

That's good.

You know,

look, most of Canada,

it's the infection from this country that's breaching into Canada.

And by the way, you can be against mandates.

You're stupid, but you can be against them.

But this kind of like, talk about performative, talk about performative.

That's what this is in terms of the screaming and yelling from specifically Brandon Musk.

Come on.

Come on.

Brand is funny, at least.

But in terms of this, it's, and I think Elon was just playing games, too, if you read a lot of his tweets.

I love Russell Brand.

Have you listened to any of his stuff?

I have.

I may not agree with everything, but he's fearless.

He's very, he's got an interesting twist on tech.

He's a smart guy.

But nonetheless,

every little topic gets blown out of proportion in a way.

These people should be able to protest.

It's not a thing.

You should be able to look at the numbers.

90% of truckers are vaccinated.

Again, this small group of people are going to hold on and be the noisiest people in the room for all of eternity.

So there you go.

So just speaking of trucks, Elon's going to make a cyber truck to replace all of them, I guess.

I don't know.

Is he?

It's going to be a trip.

Elon Musk is looking to put him out of booth.

Well, it's going to be driven at the beginning.

It's delayed until 2023 at the earliest production was supposed to take place at the end of last year.

If you want to talk about, if I were to predict where autonomous driving is headed, 100%

off hours.

You know,

some people like driving.

They express, they get self-expressive benefit.

They like their freedom.

Guess what?

Your eggs and lumber doesn't care who's transporting it.

It can be done in the dead of night.

The person costing the company money is the person

driving the thing through hyperloops and tunnels.

Who's building hyperloops and tunnels?

Whoo, whoo, who?

The guy who's supporting you so much, you're going, yay, is going to put you out.

Oh, business.

Oh, my God.

I know.

It's kind of funny, isn't it?

Everything he's doing is to replace people in the supply chain, it seems like.

Right?

I mean, come on.

Like, guys, pay attention.

Anyway, that's that.

Canadian truckers, good luck.

You're going to lose your job eventually from your Canadian trucker.

That's a good thing.

I know.

I bet they're tough.

God.

Most Canadian colours.

It's like a flannel shirt, a little facial hair.

It's like the sexy guy on Schitt's Creek.

You think?

That guy's a Canadian trucker.

Is he?

Canadians.

Well, Ryan Revolution.

I don't know if he is.

He should be.

I binge-watched all the Deadpools this week because I was cleaning and my son left and I cleaned out his room.

Genius.

It was such a good movie.

Such a good movie.

I love that.

I love that.

There should should be an off-switch on my prostate, or is that the on-switch?

There's so many.

There's just some genius lines in there.

There's some tiny little lines in there.

Some genius lines in there.

Anyway, we say, Ryan Reynolds, we support you.

That's what we do.

We do.

Let's bring in our friend of Pivot.

Neil Kochell is a former acting U.S.

Solicitor General and a professor of national security law at Georgetown University.

Neil also clerked for Justice Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court, which is the subject of his recent op-ed in the Washington Post.

Neil is in a Silicon Valley office where it's super noisy, so don't mind the vent going.

Welcome, Neil.

Thank you so much for being here.

Yeah, sorry, I'm at the BitGo headquarters and it's kind of, there's a little air going on in the background.

In your op-ed, you say, let's go right into the Supreme Court because you and I talk about this a lot.

You say Justice Breyer's career demonstrates, quote, that one can hold strong views and yet retain nuance and capacity, listen, and learn from one another.

So, a vanishing quality, correct?

Correct.

So, tell us about that.

Yeah, so I mean, I actually was Justice Breyer's law clerk back in his third year on the court, and I was like an ideological 26-year-old.

I had all sorts of views about what's right and wrong.

And Justice Breyer brought a real humility to the task of judging and a task of listening to other people and trying to find a reasonable compromise.

And not in the sense sense of like, you know, both sides-ism or anything like that.

He was very strong when it mattered on things like abortion or environmental protection or privacy or voting rights, you know, foundational things.

But I also really just understood that one of the roles

of being a judge, one of the roles of being a citizen, is also just trying to understand the other side, respect the other side, give them decency.

You know, it really was apparent to me because Justice Scalia used to come after him in his written opinions and attack Justice Breyer in really personal ways.

And we, you know, and I would want him to respond and say, you know, and, you know, give it back to him a little bit.

But he never did.

He always turned the other cheek.

Just a remarkable man.

And, you know, as you think about, as we think about Supreme Court appointments, particularly on this court, which is now so out of the mainstream of American society, it's far more conservative than where American society is with six of the nine justices appointed by Republican presidents.

That itself is not unusual.

That's been, like my entire lifetime, it's basically been something like that, or even seven to two Republican appointments, Republican president appointments.

But what's different is the individuals on there are far more conservative than even their Republican-nominated predecessors.

And so

as Justice Breyer leaves the court and there's a seat to be filled, replacing it with someone who's just progressives, who's just a liberal or something like that, doesn't actually matter.

The decisions will be what the decisions are.

So, what we need is a justice who, like Justice Breyer, can sometimes count for more than one vote because of her style and because of her disposition, her ability to basically talk to others and forge a consensus.

How would you, I mean, you're close to it.

It's easy to say that the Supreme Court has become more politicized or less collegial.

How would you describe as someone who's close to and observes the court?

What would you say the major changes in tone or just the way they present themselves to each other?

How have things, when you look at it, how have things changed?

Yeah, they've changed a lot.

So it's a remarkably brilliant court.

I mean, these are nine very smart, very hardworking people.

But they are now a court that is more

at each other's throats in written opinions.

And I think that started with Justice Scalia, who brought a lot of great changes to the court, including just kind of a more more aggressive questioning style.

But some of the acrimony in the written opinions that he started is now becoming much more commonplace.

You know, that's just tonal.

That's just, you know, that to me is not the real problem.

The real problem is you've got a court that fundamentally now doesn't care about starry decisis, the kind of old Anglo-American principle of law that precedent matters.

And so Roe versus Wade has been the law for 50 years, but is now on the verge of being overruled.

I think it's inevitable that it gets overruled, if not this year in the Mississippi case directly, certainly next year when the Texas case comes back.

Affirmative action has been upheld repeatedly since 1978, including just a couple of years ago in the University of Texas case.

Now, I think many observers think that affirmative action is on the way out.

The Voting Rights Act, I stood before the Supreme Court in 2009 and argued the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court upheld it eight to one, only to reverse their decision four years later in Shelby County.

So you've got a court that is willing to trample on prior precedents in order to advance a very conservative agenda.

And

so I think we need nominees who can, A, fight back against that, and B, start to peel off some of the justices who are conservative, but who also don't want the court to go off a cliff.

Right.

So, when you talk about what is the solution then, is it because they could say, well, those were wrong decisions, and we're just correcting the situation because this is our point of view.

Yeah, so I think one part of it is: you know, I don't think that progressives or liberals are going to win in the Supreme Court in major cases for a while.

The question is, how badly are they going to lose?

And there are ways in which you can steer the court into more narrow decisions if you do have the respect, if you have a kind of savvy strategy.

And I think certain nominee candidates will be better at that than others.

So, for example, last year, I had a case from the city of Philadelphia involving LGBT foster parents.

And the city of Philadelphia won this case in the Court of Appeals.

They basically said, you know, when we use private agencies to screen prospective foster parents, they can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

There are two Catholic agencies that said, hey, we're not going to screen these people.

It's against our beliefs.

And the city said, look, these are our dollars.

They're city dollars that we're using to have you perform a city task of figuring out which parents are appropriate or not.

You can't discriminate.

Throughout my lifetime, this case would have been an easy case to win on the U.S.

Supreme Court.

We took a look at it.

We knew we couldn't win once Justice Barrett got on the court.

And so the question was, how do you lose?

And so we engineered a strategy to lose in a very narrow way, just on Philadelphia-specific issues, not that one city, not a nationwide holding.

So I think, and ultimately, that's what the court did: nine to zero.

I think that's what the new justice is going to have to be thinking about: is how to steer the court toward narrow losses rather than big catastrophic losses.

Ah, interesting.

So, when you think about changes, like I said, is there anything you can do?

Pete Buttigieg has put a 555 plan.

There's all kinds of

ideas of expanding it.

Is there anything to be done?

Because a lot of Americans

do think the court is motivated by politics.

I always thought they were,

but more and more people think that.

Yeah, I mean, there's all sorts of supposedly structural solutions and the like, and some of them may be a good idea, but the problem is none of them are politically realistic because, yes, the Supreme Court's size is not fixed under our Constitution.

I mean, we started with five justices.

We had six for a while.

At one point, we had 10.

But since 1868, a law of Congress has said it's nine justices.

To change that requires another law of Congress.

And when you have Mansion and Cinema in Congress saying

that we will not break the filibuster, you need 60 votes to change the size of the Supreme Court.

And we're not going to get 60 votes.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: And if you were to make predictions about, it just seems like there's become such a narrow window around when it's safe to nominate a justice.

How do you think the nomination process, if at all, is going to change moving forward?

I think after what they did with Justice Barrett and maybe before that with the Scalia seat, the Republicans have lost all credibility with Supreme Court nominations.

They have played so many monkey games.

They're totally inconsistent monkey games with one another.

With Justice Scalia, when he passed away in February before the 2016 election, they said it it should be up to the successor to confirm the president.

And then when Justice Ginsburg passed away a month before the presidential election, they said, oh, forget that talk about successor.

We're going to just rush her through.

At this point, they don't have a leg to stand on.

And so I suspect the White House and the Democrats will move a nominee really quickly and not get mired down into standard Washington.

And it looks like many Republicans are backing that.

Lindsey Graham said something kind, I guess, I suppose, about the nominees.

There's Paul Ryan.

There's a whole bunch of people sort of talking in that direction, correct?

Although there's a whole nother group that's saying you shouldn't pick a woman, a person of color, a woman who's a person of color either, and just say it, even though other presidents have done that, said it explicitly.

100%.

I mean, Susan Collins yesterday was talking out of both sides of her mouth, not making any sense, saying, you know, how

ridiculous it was that President Biden said African-American woman.

And George Stephanopoulos responded, saying, well, that's what Reagan said.

And she said, oh, no, that wasn't when

he wasn't a candidate for president, then he was the president, which is, A, flatly wrong,

because he said when he was a candidate, and B, it totally irrelevant.

So, look, you know,

we're more than 200 years into this country.

We've never had an African-American woman justice.

Of course, it's time for that to occur.

And fortunately, we have

some great, great candidates for this.

Yeah, and it looks like several several Republicans are going to support it.

It looks like it's going to go through relatively easily, correct?

Unless something happens.

I never know when it comes to the Republicans and the Supreme Court what to expect.

But, you know, I'll say, like, you know, one of the candidates, Leandra Kruger, she was my principal deputy solicitor general when I was running that office.

She's on the California Supreme Court now.

She is extraordinary.

She is one of maybe the two or three best lawyers I've ever worked with in my life, and that includes Elena Kagan.

And, you know, I don't, there's not enough good things to say about her.

Same thing with Katanji Brown Jackson, who's the other kind of so-called front-runner or whatever at this point.

She's just stunningly good, smart and savvy.

And so I hope that you're right, Kara, and the Republicans do, you know, come to their senses about this and

confirm these folks and confirm them enthusiastically.

Can I ask you a question about tech?

Because these justices are very young.

They're all going to be around for a long time.

Most of the focus is obviously on voting rights and abortion and gay and lesbian issues soon, I suspect.

But what about tech?

What is going to come up and rise the Supreme Court?

This is a much more tech-savvy group of people, presumably.

There's antitrust issues.

Obviously, you're a national security lawyer, tech companies saying there shouldn't be much regulation.

What do you see when you look out across the landscape that will impact Silicon Valley or media?

Yeah, no, I've probably argued 10 or 12 technology cases before the Supreme Court.

And I think the justices currently have very much a view, like, let's not mess this up.

So, they've generally had a much more hands-off view about adjudicating big tech cases.

Every so often, like I have this case about gene patents, the Myriad Genetics case, in which they do take a strong position and invalidate patents on the human genome, which has really sparked the genomics revolution.

So, you get sometimes big results like that, but for the most part, they want to be be narrow

and have narrow holdings when it comes to tech cases because they're too worried about messing up what is now the foundational sector of the American economy.

I don't think losing Justice Breyer and these two, you know, or some other supposedly younger nominee is going to change things very much on that.

I think their very strong inclination is to do no more.

Really?

And what about issues?

What do you think the big issues that are going to arise in the Supreme Court are

related to tech?

Yeah, so I think, well, related to tech, yeah, I think, I mean, the antitrust stuff is obviously, you know, coming front and center, and I'm involved in some of that.

And, you know, so I think that's probably the first.

I think the second is kind of questions around consumer protection, around technology.

You've obviously got an administration which is ramping up enforcement in that area.

You've got a court that is generally considered conservative and pro-corporate.

You know, will this nominee be able to change things?

Probably not.

I think Breyer was solidly a consumer protection person in the dissent, you know, that is, you know, losing cases in the Supreme Court.

I don't think that the new nominee will change things much.

How do you think the nomination and confirmation process?

I mean, there's some ideas about expanding the size of the court.

What would you like to see happen?

Well, I definitely think at this point in time, given the monkeying with the Supreme Court, that we should be considering, you know, in an ideal world, we would be thinking about expanding the size of the court.

Because that's not realistic, I think one thing we should be thinking about is a bipartisan proposal.

It's been around for almost 20 years to change Supreme Court 10-year terms from life to 18-year terms, which is the average amount of time a Supreme Court justice serves over American history.

You know, it's just macabre, the specter that we go through about studying actuarial tables about justices.

Some presidents, presidents, like President Trump, get really lucky and get three appointments.

Some get no appointments.

I mean, in the last, I think, 50 years, Republican presidents have nominated 15 justices to the Supreme Court.

Democrats have nominated four.

So you've got this kind of just imbalance by luck that is contributing to kind of the polarization and the extremism at the Supreme Court.

And I think that that kind of a structural solution is one worth considering.

That's a great idea.

I'm going to ask a question.

When you think about having been in the Supreme Court, done things, argued before the Supreme Court, I'd love you to actually say something you like about it in the system because it does feel like it's the center of bad politics again, as everything else.

And by the way, studies suggest that Supreme Court justices get more liberal with age.

I think that has happened.

I remember the Nixon appointees got kind of looser as they went along.

Correct.

So I do not mean to be totally negative about the Supreme Court

because the Supreme Court, at its best, can do extraordinary,

almost magical things for our democracy and our republic.

Just to mention two recent examples, I had the privilege of working on the marriage equality cases with a whole bunch of brilliant lawyers who did a lot more than me.

But I remember when we walked into the court thinking maybe we're going to get a decision that day, and there were about 100 people

on the steps who were in favor of marriage equality and 100 who were against.

And there were respectful protests on both sides as we walked in.

When we walked out after the Supreme Court ruled to make marriage equality the law of the nation, tens of thousands of people on the Supreme Court plaza linking arms, singing America the Beautiful.

I'll never forget it.

That's a decision made by the Supreme Court just a couple of years ago.

Yeah, let's hope.

I had the privilege of representing Osama bin Laden's driver before the Supreme Court in a court that was

seven Republican-appointed justices, two Democrats, and bin Laden's driver sued George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and won.

You know, that's something remarkable about this country to have something like that be decided by our highest court in the land.

I think it's possible for the Supreme Court to do that again.

I don't think that all is lost, but I do think we need a justice like Justice Breyer who can carry that mission forward of respectfully listening to the other side and injecting some more reason into the process.

All right, Neil.

Thank you so much.

We really appreciate it.

That's Neil Kotchal.

Thanks, Neil.

Nice meeting you.

All right, Scott, one more quick break.

We'll be back for wins and fails.

This month on Explain It to Me, we're we're talking about all things wellness.

We spend nearly $2 trillion on things that are supposed to make us well.

Collagen smoothies and cold plunges, Pilates classes, and fitness trackers.

But what does it actually mean to be well?

Why do we want that so badly?

And is all this money really making us healthier and happier?

That's this month on Explain It To Me, presented by Pureleaf.

Support for the show comes from Saks Fifth Avenue.

Saks Fifth Avenue makes it easy to shop for your personal style.

Follow us here, and you can invest in some new arrivals that you'll want to wear again and again, like a relaxed product blazer and Gucci loafers, which can take you from work to the weekend.

Shopping from Saks feels totally customized, from the in-store stylist to a visit to Saks.com, where they can show you things that fit your style and taste.

They'll even let you know when arrivals from your favorite designers are in, or when that Brunella Cuccinelli sweater you've been eyeing is back in stock.

So, if you're like me and you need shopping to be personalized and easy, head to Saks Fifth Avenue for the best follow rivals and style inspiration.

Okay, Scott, time for wins and fails.

All right, what are they?

We've had a lot of agony here today.

So something happy, please.

Look, my win is Neil Young.

I've never listened to his music, never appreciated it, but I'm not a Neil Young fan.

Oh, you're kidding.

Probably doesn't matter all this.

I am.

Anyway, go ahead.

Good for you.

Joni Mitchell.

I think Meal.

Do you like Joni Mitchell?

Who wrote Chucky's in Love?

Oops, that was Ricky Lee.

That was a mistake, Joe Rogan made.

I couldn't name a Joni Mitchell song.

But let me guess.

I bet you were.

Come on.

Oh, so many people.

Is she the one that wrote 17?

Oh, no, no, no.

I'm not even going to.

Joni Mitchell is one of the greatest living songs.

She just got a Kenny Center on her.

Come on.

You don't know her song Blue.

I don't like Led Zeppelin either.

There's a lot of that.

Cave Paradise.

Come on.

Do not judge my musical taste.

Oh, my God.

Unless it was big in the 80s, I'm not into it.

Ask me about English beater REM.

I can tell you anything you want.

She is a G.

She's a poet and a genius.

By the way, she's from Canada, too.

Oh, she's Canadian.

Yellow taxi, both sides now, river.

No?

Oh, I can't believe this.

I have to break up with you.

She's a Canadian.

Let me just say that again.

Anyway, the best people come from Canada.

Okay.

Anyways, my win is Neil Young.

And that is

I think he is putting his money in it where his mouth is.

And it inspired me to think.

And

I think provoking a debate, even if as long as it's a civil debate, I think we're having a civil conversation here, is a service.

And he's provoked a very interesting conversation that will result in a certain amount of tension and conflict, but will craft better solutions.

So my win is Neil Young.

Fail?

My fail is

the former, I believe it was Miss

USA or Miss Universe, that killed herself.

Did you read her things she had done?

They were so impressive.

But go ahead.

Sorry.

Yeah, it's just, and it's just, it just goes back to mental illness and loneliness.

And we've been so focused on this pandemic.

Just so many people are struggling, and so many people have such incredibly bright futures and go into a place that they feel like they can't get out of.

So I just read this, and it was just one of those things that just kind of punched you in the gut.

And you really think about mental illness, we still stigmatize it.

We still aren't good at identifying and reaching out to people as much as we can or should.

It's definitely most, what is it, the most preventable.

It's now the most preventable form of death.

It used to be accidents.

So it's just, it's, we have an epidemic, a mental health crisis.

I don't even call it a merging crisis.

We have a mental health crisis, even amongst our most, even amongst our youngest and most promising.

So I don't, I don't, you know, I don't have a lesson here.

I don't have any insight here.

I just read that and thought, gosh, this is just such a tragedy.

You know, just impressive young woman.

Just an impressive young woman in so many ways.

And

the vicissitudes of mental health are really quite strong.

I think the win was our discussion this weekend.

It brought us closer.

I think that was a win.

It was also.

I agree.

I appreciate you saving me from myself.

You started asking me a lot of good questions.

I also, you know who I also called, I also called Preet Barari.

I'm doing late-night conversations.

He's my Sean Hannity.

He tucks me in.

I said, Preeta, you up?

He's like, I'm always up.

I'm always up.

The fail is that you don't know Joni Mitchell.

And I know where I'm getting you for Christmas now.

When I was,

oh my God, that's Janice Ian.

No, Janice Ian.

Janice Ian.

Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone.

They paved paradise.

I don't know who Janice has.

Oh my God.

I have to break up with you now.

We must break up.

That is

the fail today.

I tried to be your friend and partner,

we need to break up over Joni Mitchell or you need to learn you need to invest in our relationship and listen to Joni Mitchell you know a genius who I do know a lot about what you know a genius who I don't know if he's pulling his music or is upset is Peter Frampton oh I love him that guy's a genius let's have him on he's fantastic let's have Peter Frampton I'd love to have Peter Frampton on oh my god every woman I wanted to kiss in the eighth grade had a Peter Frampton poster yes that was he was great

Scott that's the show we'll be back on Friday for more thank you for this frank discussion we would love your opinions on what we said.

We are struggling ourselves, and

we like people's opinions, and we'd love to know what you think.

Yeah, should we sell our Twitter stock?

Yeah.

Okay.

All right, everybody.

When I was 17.

I'm so excited.

Today's show.

Ian.

Today's show is produced by Lara Naiman, Evan Engel, and Taylor Griffin.

Ernie Entertot engineered this episode.

Thanks also to Drew Burrows and Miel Silverio.

Make sure you subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts.

Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media.

We'll be back later this week for another breakdown of all things tech and business.

What a wonderful society.

Capitalism gives you the opportunity to vote with your time, your treasure, and your talent.

Doesn't have to make discourse more coarse, but you don't have to eat that chicken sandwich.