The Supreme Court is in the spotlight again as controversy surrounds its latest ruling in some of the justices themselves.

On that and the other political stories shaping the week, we turn to the analysis tonight of Brooks and Dion.

That's New York Times columnist of Brooks and Dion.

That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and E.J. Dion,

a columnist for the Washington Post.

Jonathan Kapart is away this evening.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.

Great to be with you.

So the Supreme Court, as we reported earlier this morning, struck down this Trump-era

rule that sought to ban bump stocks.

These are devices that allow semi-automatic rifles to fire like fully automatic machine guns.

David, this was not a case about the Second Amendment or gun rights,

but this ruling is a rejection of the government's few steps, one of the government's few steps to really regulate

and address gun violence in this country. What are the implications?

Well I mean first I should say I'm against gun stock I would get rid of these things in a heartbeat and I think we should the Congress should just eliminate them and pass a zillion other gun control

legislations but this is about who gets to decide these things.

And so machine guns are banned,

and they're banned with a definition of machine gun,

that a machine gun is something, a single function of the trigger.

Hold your hand and a bunch of bullets come out.

And so, bump stocks are not quite that technically.

And so the Obama administration, under the Obama administration,

...