It's funny how democrats early on accused the current court of being extremely politicised/biased/whatever but in the end, this court has certainly been impartial and that is almost entirely thanks to the Trump appointees + Robert. Indeed, KBJ, Sotomayor, Alito and Thomas pretty much always rule the way you'd expect them to, based on who appointed them. On the other hand, Robert, ACB, Kavanaugh and even Gorsuch (on LGBT and native american issues for example) have a much less predictably biased record. Kagan at least tries to be less partisan but still falls way short of those 4.
That's probably why the "pack the courts" movement is dead. No one who isn't a hack seriously thinks the court is partisan. Corruption though is a more credible issue (looking at you, Thomas).
https://twitter.com/josephpatrice/status/1749602985204666621
As pointed out already in the thread, the existence of "sanctuary cities" shows how much worth the supremacy clause really is.
And my wider point is not just about this case anyway. The gerrymandering ruling was clearly favorable to democrats in almost every way imaginable and is (along with Dobbs), the most electorally impactful decision of this court so far.
