Today's Supreme Court decisions weren't about immigration and campaign spending

...they were about the authority of our central government. We are the UNITED States of America, not the Confederated States of America, or an American Union like the EU. Personally I'd prefer America's central government to adopt Arizona's immigration policies and Montana's campaign spending policies, but today's world requires a strong central government--much moreso than in 1789--and today we experienced the downside of that need.

Note that the part of the Arizona law requiring cops to verify the immigration status of people who appear to be illegals was a unanimous decision, though with the proviso that it could be revisited later after it has been enforced for a while. So it would be tough to call that one a political decision.

When the Supreme Court finds a law constitutional or otherwise, the majority isn't saying it necessarily likes or dislikes that law--only that the law was or was not constitutional. Not the same thing at all, just as here I didn't like these two laws being overturned/mostly overturned...or I wished they were federal laws. Except that the Montana one about campaign spending was also overturned as a federal law by a five vote Supreme Court majority that believes corporations should be able to spend their shareholders' money without limit on political campaigns, but unions not their members' money.

This country's next couple of decades will be cited in history books as proof of why campaign spending should be strictly regulated to prevent takeover of government by the oligarchs.