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,
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