Smith v. Van Gorkum. Instead of reading this case, which my professor assures us is one of the two most important Corporations cases (and thus, painfully hard reading without the fear of recitation looming over your head like Damocles' Sword), I decided to do a post.
Every now and then, I'll take part in a political conversation, or I'll read a post by someone (any random person, nobody in particular), and the person will say or write something that strikes me as fundamentally wrong. What they'll say is something to the effect of, "Well, I'm a Democrat/Republican, so I believe XX." I really hope that the person (For ease of typing, I'll say "he") doesn't mean that the way it came out, because it sounds like he is so desperate to belong that he's willing to give up independent thought simply to be able to say he belongs. That might have been somewhat tolerable in high school, where your world is a fishbowl, but the point of high school is to help you learn how to think, or, in these days of no child left behind, how to mark A, B, C, D, or E in the right order.
One of the reasons why I refuse to align with any party is that I don't think that any party has it completely right. There are failures on each side. As such, I won't joing a party line simply because it's mentally efficient. Another reason I don't join is because I enjoy being able to pick on both major parties equally, and the Libertarians on a much lower proportion.
Anyway, I don't think there's anything wrong with letting you morals determine your politics; indeed that should guide your way. However, I can't accept anyone arguing that they let their politics determine his morals. Efficient or not, it sacrifices individual integrity.