* Jonathan Chait on the real moral difference between the two parties: One thinks market losers should not be denied non-emergency medical attention; the other thinks they should.

* James Downie on the real meaning of the new Bain revelations, and on which investors would really make a killing if Mitt Romney did run America like a troubled company in need of a turnaround.

* Even if the immigration decision was only a partial victory for Dems, the voiding of major chunks of the law puts Romney in a bind and gives Obama another major argument for his pitch to Latino voters.

* Video: Romney’s spokesman bobs and weaves rather than reveal what his boss, who is a candidate for president of the United States, thinks of the Supreme Court’s momentous immigration decision today.

* Also in that link, Romney, at a fundraiser, tips his hand (a bit more) on the Arizona decision:

“[G]iven the failure of the immigration policy in this country, I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states, not less,” he said. “And there are states now under this decision have less authority, less latitude, to enforce immigration laws.” Because Obama hasn’t acted, he said, “it’s a muddle.”

Romney still won’t say anything about the policy dimensions of the court’s ruling on the Arizona law, and will only voice support for the general principle that states should have more latitude and not less. Oh, and it’s all Obama’s fault.

* Ben Jacobs argues that Antonin Scalia basically approached the immigration decision as a partisan operative:

Scalia in fact spends several pages criticizing, on policy grounds, Obama’s recent executive order on immigration. There are plausible legal arguments to make against the president’s decision to essentially enforce a partial version of the DREAM Act by executive order, but it was not an issue in the Arizona case. Scalia’s broadside is pure digression.

* Chart of the day: Steve Benen demonstrates just how popular Obamacaare’s main provisions are among, well, everyone, Republicans included, as long as they don’t have Obama’s name on them.

* A Pennsylvania Republican’s moment of refreshing candor: Romney will win the state, thanks to GOP efforts to restrict voting — er, sorry, voter fraud.

* As David Firestone notes, SCOTUS’s decision against the Montana law makes it difficult not to conclude that the conservative justicies are actively pleased with what Citizens United has done to our politics.

* E.J. Dionne boils down the Montana decision: State’s rights, no; corporate rights, yes.

* And Obama, on the trail today, mocking the Romney camp’s distinctions between outsourcing and offshoring:

“What Gov. Romney’s advisers don’t seem to understand is this: If you’re a worker whose job went overseas, you don’t need somebody explaining to you the difference between outsourcing and offshoring. You need somebody who’s going to wake up every day and fight for American jobs and investment here in the United States. That’s what you need. That’s why I’m running.”

This underscores again that the Obama camp sees the outsourcing revelations as central to defining Romney, his priorities, and his vision of the economy in the crucial summer months, before the campaign’s final stretch.

What else?