I deplore it, but I’m not getting worked up about it. This all follows logically from corporatism, and is further proof that nothing short of the complete abolition of corporations will suffice if what you want is human freedom and well-being.
Meanwhile I’ll leave it to those who claim to want human institutions, but who in practice support corporatism, to whine about these developments. This is the way they wanted it to go. In 2009/2010 the liberals had the power to institute Medicare For All at will, and the one and only reason they didn’t do so is because they didn’t want to. They wanted to do their “reform” this way, rendering the system far more complex, irrational, dysfunctional, expensive, and greatly increasing corporate power.
The liberals wanted to do it this way because liberals are, first and foremost, corporatists. They therefore don’t want human well-being, but corporate domination. Let anyone deny this, and we need only ask in reply why they did what they did with health care, or with Wall Street, or with agriculture and food, or with everything else they did when they had the power to do whatever they wanted.
It’s liberals who want health care to be at the mercy of employment and, implicitly, under the control of employers. It’s also they who, however much some of them may sometimes whine about it, want to maximize corporate “rights” and corporate power. So I really can’t imagine why they’d be surprised or upset by this development, theocracy-via-corporatism. It follows logically from the corporatist premise. The corporate form is designed to maximize the power and control and unaccountability of those who run these organizations, and to let them commit crimes with impunity.
This is no “abuse” on the part of the SCOTUS*, but a perfectly logical, mainstream extension of corporatist doctrine. This is an inherently totalitarian doctrine, and there’s no logical limit to it.
There are two possible coherent positions: Coordinated corporatism, or abolitionism.
(Conservatives are just as foolish, but in different ways. In this case it’s liberals who are suddenly appalled at the same dynamic they normally applaud.)
*They also acknowledge the alleged legitimacy and authority of this absurd institution, nine mediocre priests of the “law” cult whose word is to have autocratic power. Nor is there any humanist dissent among these nine. As usual, these are unanimous decisions exalting corporate “rights”, which no one rejects or even questions. The alleged split is merely over the technical forms of law, which can’t withstand the corporate inertia and aren’t designed to. So again, what are the liberals whining about?