Live Breaking News & Updates on X Party

Stay updated with breaking news from X party. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.

Transcripts For CSPAN Gill V. Whitford Oral Argument 20171007

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 ....

United States , South Dakota , Sean Gregory , Eric Mcgee , Matt Kuchar , Court Hold , First Amendment , Interest Party , Party Strong , Strong Party , Wisconsin Republican , Republicans Texas , Texas Republicans , District Association , Association People , Holy Grail , Court Dealt , Many Republican , Max Black , Lesson Court , Court Learn , Wisconsin Republicans , Democratic Candidates , Able Campaign , Group Social , Experts Computer ,

Transcripts For CSPAN Gill V. Whitford Oral Argument 20171007

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
United States , Eric Mcgee , Matt Kuchar , Court Hold , First Amendment , Interest Party , Party Strong , Strong Party , Wisconsin Republican , Republicans Texas , Texas Republicans , District Association , Association People , Holy Grail , Court Dealt , Many Republican , Max Black , Lesson Court , Court Learn , Wisconsin Republicans , Democratic Candidates , Able Campaign , Group Social , Experts Computer , Political Parties , Evidence Party ,

Transcripts For CSPAN Public Affairs Events 20171007

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
United States , Sean Gregory , Eric Mcgee , Matt Kuchar , Court Hold , First Amendment , Interest Party , Party Strong , Strong Party , Wisconsin Republican , Republicans Texas , Texas Republicans , District Association , Association People , Holy Grail , Court Dealt , Many Republican , Max Black , Lesson Court , Court Learn , Wisconsin Republicans , Democratic Candidates , Able Campaign , Group Social , Experts Computer , Political Parties ,

Transcripts For CSPAN Gill V. Whitford Oral Argument 20171008

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 ....

United States , Eric Mcgee , Matt Kuchar , Court Hold , First Amendment , Interest Party , Party Strong , Strong Party , Wisconsin Republican , Republicans Texas , Texas Republicans , District Association , Association People , Holy Grail , Court Dealt , Many Republican , Max Black , Lesson Court , Court Learn , Wisconsin Republicans , Democratic Candidates , Able Campaign , Group Social , Experts Computer , Political Parties , Evidence Party ,

Transcripts For CSPAN Gill V. Whitford Oral Argument 20171009

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
United States , Court Hold , First Amendment , Interest Party , Party Strong , Strong Party , Members Congress , Wisconsin Republican , Texas Republicans , Texas Law , Republicans Texas , Association People , Holy Grail , Many Republican , Court Learn , Lesson Court , Wisconsin Republicans , Justice Alito , Able Campaign , Justice Ginsburg , Justice Kennedy , Home Rule , Justice Breyer , Group Social , Party Control , Political Parties ,