You ready?

I was born ready. Welcome to Advisory opinions. I'm Sarah Isger and David French.

Thanks so much.

I'm Sarah Isger and David French welcome back.

Thanks so much I'm so happy to be back.

Well we are gonna do I don't know let's just go around the world a little bit.

We need to get your take first on some of the Supreme Court

decisions that came out last week. So should we start with Kargill, bump stocks?

Yeah, let's start with bump stocks and I don't really have much to add to the

discussion but I do want to say this, and this is something that I've been trying to figure out how are the ways to communicate the injustice of new administration, new legal interpretation of a rule that includes criminal penalties.

And why this is a real problem for our democracy and I think it goes the best way to say it is

look you have two administrations you have Obama to Trump under, one kind of conduct is completely lawful. Under Trump, another kind of that same conduct, that same conduct is unlawful, is unlawful to the point of criminal penalties and yet the

underlying law did not change. So the...

Wait and worse, when it goes then to the next president, they can change it back.

They can change it back.

And so you can literally have a law passed by Congress that in one administration is you can be prosecuted for conduct

under that law and the next administration you cannot be prosecuted for the same conduct under that law without the law changing at all,

only regulations changing at the whim of the president.

And this is not prosecutorial discretion.

The difference between prosecutorial discretion and this is under prosecutorial discretion.

The underlying law hasn't changed. The same conduct is still unlawful from

say administration one administration two, but administration two is maybe changing

...