I follow the Court reasonably closely, and simple assertions that it is completely political are just wrong.

One thing that irks me is when a Justice disagrees with someone and the someone asserts that the Justice was ideological. But when a Justice agrees, that was solid judicial thinking.

In this case, there was no real way out for an idealogue, had a liberal wanted to be one this time. I have a hard time imagining what a dissent would say. Even the oral argument did not offer much.