If you years ago we began inviting to offer for every class, a extraordinary opportunity for our students as you embark on your legal education, to listen to and learn from someone whose career has shipped a law. Shaped a law. By attending georgetown law you laws where they are made. In the past few years people sotoheard from justice meyer, justice stevens, justice scalia. We have been so fortunate the last two years, the second year in a row to be joined by the legendary Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. [applause] a long introduction is not necessary. Your storiesss in you will read and discuss the many powerful and Supreme Court decisions as well as the influential dissent. He will also learned that she occupies a rare late in history. Marshallice thurgood Justice Ginsburg will be a historic figure as an advocate for gender equality. Even if she had never been a judge or justice. And, i same sure you all know, the justice, is also a cultural icon. How many of us can say that we avent si
This is about one hour, 10 minutes. [applause] Justice Ginsburg, members of our faculty, our class, it is a privilege to welcome you here today. A few years ago, we began inviting people to offer reflections to our entering class. This has been an extraordinary opportunity for our students, as you embark on your legal education, to listen to and learn from someone whose career has shaped the law. And by attending georgetown law, you have chosen to learn the law you have chosen to learn the law in a place where laws are made. And this is evident in the speakers who have welcomed our first year students. People have heard from Justice Sotomayor, justice stevens, and the late justice scalia. And we have been so fortunate the last two years, this is the second year in a row, to be joined by the legendary Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. [applause] i know a long introduction of Justice Ginsburg is not necessary for georgetown students. You know about her decisions and her pointed and influentia
Supreme Court Justice spoke to first year law students wednesday on the challenge facing women who enter the legal field. She also gave a brief overview of the Upcoming Court term. This is an hour and 10 minutes. William Justice Ginsburg, it is a privilege to welcome you here today. A few years ago, we began inviting people to offer reflections to our entering class. This has been an extraordinary opportunity for our students, as you embark on your legal education, to listen to and learn from someone whose career has shaped the law. And by attending georgetown law, you have chosen to learn the law in a place where laws are made. And this is evident in the speakers who have welcomed our first year students. People have heard from Justice Sotomayor, justice stevens, and the late justice scalia. And we have been so fortunate the last two years, this is the second year in a row, to be joined by the legendary Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. [applause] william i know a long introduction of Just
Versus whitford. This court has never uncovered judiciously manageable standards for how politicians have acted too politically. Andal science metrics hypothetical projections do not solve any of these problems. They were merely shifting districting the final courts who decided the fate of maps based upon panels of experts. On a threshold matter, this court should hold the courts jurisdiction to entertain statewide political gerrymandering challenges, leaving district specific gerrymandering. I think it is true there is no case that directly helps respondents strongly on the standing issue. You have a strong argument. Suppose the court you have to assume we will know exactly the parameters of it decided this was a First Amendment issue. Not an equal protection issue. With that change the calculus so if you are in one part of the state you have a First Amendment interest in having your party strong or the other party weak . Mr. Tseytlin no, your honor. It is still grounded in the right
Morning in case 161161, gill versus whitford. Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court. Judiciously manageable standards for how politicians have acted too politically. Andal science metrics hypothetical projections do not solve any of these problems. They were merely shifting districting the final courts who decided the fate of maps based upon panels of experts. On a threshold matter, this court should hold the courts jurisdiction to entertain statewide political gerrymandering challenges, leaving district specific gerrymandering. I think it is true there is no case that directly helps respondents strongly on the standing issue. You have a strong argument. Suppose the court you have to assume we will know exactly the parameters of it decided this was a First Amendment issue. Not an equal protection issue. With that change the calculus so if you are in one part of the state you have a First Amendment interest in having your party strong or the other party weak . Mr. Tseytlin no,