unconstitutional in the mid 1930s. The decisive vote for this opinion? New Dem Stephen Breyer, who was the author as well - A fact that should be remembered when the inevitable cry "We have to vote for Hillary because of the US Supreme Court!" goes forth. The fact is that a pro-business administration and a pro-business congress will likely appoint a pro-business court, regardless of whether they are Dem or Repug. SR)
[WS:] So what do you propose instead? Not voting at all?
While it is true that the power of business in this country is enormous and thoroughly poisonous to public interests and democracy, it is not absolute and does create some space for maneuver. And while it is true that both political parties are thoroughly servile to business interests - for otherwise they would be simply wiped out of existence - that servility is not absolute and creates some room for dissent. Given that, Democrats are more likely to use whatever little space and ability they have to protect public interest against business predators.
Case in point - the recently elected MD governor - Democrat Martin O'Malley - appointed a strong consumer advocate to head the Public Service Commission that regulates utilities in the state http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.psc17feb17,1,849681.story. That is a radical step, since the Repug appointed staunchly pro-business PSC got a lot of public criticism for their role in "deregulation" (read: monopolization and price hikes) of the utilities in MD. It matters quite a bit to many people, including this writer, how much they pay in their utility bills. If the Repugs had their way, my utility bill would probably double by now.
It makes sense, therefore, to support candidates and measures that are most likely - given the circumstances - to erode, if not break the backbone, of business power in this country - even if those measures may seem contrary to some of the left convictions. Usually, this means supporting Democrats, but not always. For example, in the decision you quote the "villains" of the SC, Thomas and Scalia voted against the measure, which suggest that it is possible to wrap anti-business policy in a conservative shroud, which will give it a better chance of passage.
Wojtek