Legal analysts burn Justice Neil Gorsuch's 'absurd' rationale in gun rights case

A couple of legal analysts ripped the bizarre rationale in the ruling of a MAGA star on the Supreme Court.

On the Legal AF podcast, host Michael Popok and legal analyst Lisa Graves shared how put off they were by Justice Neil Gorsuch's opinion in the United States v. Hemani ruling. The case involved a Texas gun owner who was found with marijuana and admitted to regularly using the drug.

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the federal government can't automatically disarm someone for using marijuana a few times a week, finding the prosecution at the center of the case violated the Second Amendment, according to reporting by SCOTUSblog.

However, Popok laughed when reflecting on Gorsuch's opinion, especially a section where the Trump-appointed justice "wasted ink telling me how drunk people were in the 1800s." Graves agreed, calling the section "absurd."

"Our ancestors can be drunk, and you can be too," Popok said, summing up Gorsuch's writing. "That's sort of how I read this, allowing somebody who's on controlled substances to continue to be on controlled substances to have a firearm. It's so outrageous."

"There was this really sort of ridiculous cherry picking, or you know, trying to understand history, how drunk were the founding fathers? How drunk was the founding generation?" Graves added. "How drunk is too drunk to have a weapon? Do you have to be drunk all the time?"

"I thought I was watching Drunk History," Popok said. "You know Drunk History? where they get drunk on stage?"

Popok described Gorsuch's opinion as the "chef's kiss" on what he thought was already an "outrageous" decision.