Whitford is hour. We will hear arguments this gillng in case 161161, 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 w
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 to vote. s single district electric system, you can only vote in your own district. You might have some big interest in the part associated with having more members in congress, like a Wisconsin Republican might want more taxes Republican
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 . It is still grounded in the right to vote. Folks only vote on their own district. They have more members and congress for example, like a Wisconsin Republican might want more Texas Republicans in congress. But no one would say that you have a First Amendment or first fourteenth amendment right in that sort of circumstance to challenge texas law that you would, for example, argue led to
[captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court. A defendant comes to the plea bargaining table with certain rights in hand. Including the statutory right to appeal a conviction. Hisgovernment can see in plea agreement, the petitioner did not waive his right to appeal his conviction to challenge the constitutionality of the statue to which he played guilty. The question here is whether that right is nonetheless forfeited by operation of the plea itself. As summarized, a defendant who pleads guilty can challenge his conviction on any constitutional grounds, that if asserted before trial can forever preclude the state from finding a valid conviction against him. The Second Amendment and due process clause precludes the government from ever obtaining a valid conviction against him. That falls well
Plea deal waves the right to challenge the constitutionality of that crime. Well hear an argument next in case 16424 class versus united states. Eyre mr. Chief justice and may it please the court. A department comes to the plea bargaining table with certain rights in hand, including the statute right to appeal a conviction. The government can see in his crin plea agreement, the petitioner did not wave his rating. An appeals and here is that right forfeited not by the plea itself but as this doctrine was mentioned a defendant who leads guilty can challenge his innings on any constitutional ground and would prevent the state from claiming against him. The Second Amendment and due process clause precludes the government from obtaining a valid conviction against him and falls well within the scope of the blackledge doctrine. The governs many main contention is the petition was required to preserve his claim lieu a conditional plea but as the drafters of rule 1182 noted to the advisory note