One of my students has a bumper sticker on her laptop that says: "Vote No on Directive 10-289." It looked like this t-shirt, without the smiley face.
I consider it foreplay, myself.
Uneducated VC reader--don't worry, not having read Atlas Shrugged does not make you "uneducated."
I think it's fair to say roughly 60% of libertarians came in through her. The rest came in through a mix of Friedman, Hayeck, Mises, Rothbard, etc.
We generally think it is evidence people are principled if they act against interest. What provides more power to a Supreme Court justice: a decision saying that the government, including the Supreme Court, will in future be more heavily involved in all employment contracts, or a decision that says the government isn't needed in that arena? I'm asking you this from the prospective of logic, not based on your policy preferences.
One supports "untrammeled" freedom of contract. The other opposes it in favor of not upholding mutually agreed upon contracts if "contrary to public policy" or by use of the police power to regulate business conditions, or some other novel consideration.
I was startled to find the remarkable resemblance between Directive 10-289 and the National Recovery Administration.