Strict Scrutiny A Court of Drugs and Guns
35 snips
Mar 9, 2026 
Rob Bonta, California Attorney General who leads state litigation against federal overreach, joins to discuss standing up to the Trump administration. Conversation covers challenges to federal tariffs, responses to federal law enforcement overreach, and state antitrust actions. Short, lively takes on coordination among state attorneys general and how public service intersects with parenthood.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Originalist Hotboxing In Second Amendment Law
- United States v. Hemani exposed the court's split between strict historical analogues (Bruen) and looser vibe checks (Rahimi) in Second Amendment cases.
- The argument showed justices vacillating between demanding founding-era twins and broad justificatory vibes, risking inconsistent outcomes across gun restrictions.
Inconsistent Historical Analogies Undermine Bruen
- Justice Jackson repeatedly highlighted how manipulable the Bruen test is by comparing inconsistent federal arguments across cases.
- The government accepted historical analogues in Hemani but rejected similar analogues in Wolford, exposing selective originalism.
Frat Boy Founders Hypotheticals At Oral Argument
- Justices indulged in founding-era drinking hypotheticals, with Neil Gorsuch quizzing the SG on what 'hammered' meant historically.
- Hosts likened the exchange to frat-boy originalism, noting references to Adams, Madison, and Jefferson's drinking.
