Speaker1 how is that done . How do they become people . One of the most important raise the Supreme Court made Corporation People if you will is simply to look beyond the corporation and throughout American History the Supreme Court has granted corporations expansive Constitutional Rights, often ignoring the corporate form saying we need to protect the rights of the people who come together to form the corporation and while that idea probably made a lot of sense in the early 1800s as corporations were spot small its hard to know if the same idea makes the same degree of sense in a world where you have general motors, hundreds of thousands of shareholders and many hold only invest in the company for a matter of moments as a play on the market or does it still makes sense to break through the corporate form and see those people the need or should we try to separate the rights of the corporation from the rights of the underlying people. Was this baked into the convent constitution in any
What that means in the law is bigger independently recognizable entities and they can have Property Rights and contracts. The idea is very foundational to the american law and what is unusual is they have in interpreted them as the constitution and use that idea for extending the fundamental rights to corporations as well. How is that done. In American History the Supreme Court has granted corporations the rights ignoring the form saying we need to protect the rights of the people that come together to form the corporation it made sense in the early 18 hundreds. Its a matter of moments and a play on the market does it make sense to break through and to see all those people to protect their rights in the same way or should we try to separate the rights of the corporation from the rights of the underlining people. They never considered whether they should have constitutional protections. It never came up in the rabbit fighting conventions because they were few and far between. Its among
The lot and they can have property rights, contracts and thats why you file suit against walmart the legal entity that is the corporation. Corporate personhood is foundational to american law. Whats unusual is that the court has interpreted corporations to the people for purposes of the constitution and use that idea as a basis for extending fundamental individual rights to corporations as well. Host how is that done . How do they become people in that sense . Guest one of the most important ways the Supreme Court made corporations people if you will is simply to look beyond the corporation and throughout American History the Supreme Court has granted corporations expansive Constitutional Rights. Often ignoring the corporate form and thing we need to protect the rights of the people who come together to form the corporation. While that idea made a lot of sense in the early 1800s as corporations were very small its hard to know whether that same idea makes the same degree of sense in a
[inaudible] [inaudible] a federal judge who had the courage to fight for the rights of civil rights marchers in selma. John lewis told me about it when i read the book years ago i thought everyone was aspiring to be a federal judge at every level to know what it takes to be courageous in history. So i get that to him as a gift gift as he came by the office. He has an impressive resume in terms of service as a judge and his court before that. His a very thoughtful person and answered as many questions as he was able to, as although as you can imagine, most Supreme Court nominees are extremely careful that they dont go too far in their answers. Whats interesting when i asked about Merrick Garland he told me that Merrick Garland was the first person he called after leaving the east room of the white house. He he knows him and respects and i wanted to get in touch with him as he started this journey. He described described him as a model nominate for the Supreme Court and hoped that he wou
Contribution is a First Amendment fundamental right. It says that. And im quoting buckley. Or citing buckley. And then it says what level of scrutiny should we apply to that case . Buckley suggestions that its something less than strict scrutiny in the First Amendment context for contributions. Thats the instruction that i as lower court judge have in the First Amendment context. But this was an equal protection challenge. Okay . Its not just contributions, its the inequality of contributions thats the problem here. This system favors Major Party Candidates over minor party candidates. And normally when we have a fundamental right in equal protection analysis, we apply strict scrutiny. And so i was faced with a situation where you take the this little scrutiny out of the amendment context. Or do you apply the normal scrutiny under the equal protection context . And i pointed to two excellent opinions by wonderful district judges in the area. Okay. All right. I really did read it. So he