吉林阳痿早泄去那个医院治好(吉林哪家男科治疗的医院好) (今日更新中)

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice is using aggressive tactics against those it has charged in the civil unrest over racism. Those people have been portrayed by President Donald Trump as violent left-wing radicals.The Republican president has used the protests to try to scare white, suburban voters into reelecting him. But an Associated Press review of thousands of pages of court documents from the more than 300 federal arrests made nationwide shows many are people caught up in the moment. Very few of those charged appear to be affiliated with any highly organized extremist groups.The Associated Press reports that there is only one apparent mention of antifa in a federal arrest. In a Boston case, an FBI Gang Task Force member was investigating “suspected ANTIFA activity associated with the protests” when a suspect shot at police. The arrest record said the FBI is not investigating the shooter as an antifa member.Members of both far-left and far-right groups have been arrested charged for acts of violence amid a summer of protest, as have those who seized upon the chaos as a chance to loot businesses. But the vast majority of those arrested during summer protests are young suburban adults with little criminal history, from the very neighborhoods Trump vows to protect.Despite that sparse criminal history, the AP reports that the federal government is pushing to keep those protesters behind bars, even as the COVID-19 pandemic is spreading quickly among those who have been incarcerated. According to a tracker compiled by the AP and The Marshall Project, more than 16,000 COVID-19 cases have been recorded in the federal prison system.The Associated Press adds that 40% of those facing federal charges are Black, and two-thirds are under the age of 30.The vast majority of protests against police brutality and systemic racism that took place this summer following the death of George Floyd were peaceful. One study showed that 93% of Black Lives Matter protests between late May and late August were peaceful. 2043

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is making it easier for the president to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The high court on Monday struck from the law that created the agency restrictions on when the president can remove the bureau’s director. The decision doesn’t have a big impact on the current head of the agency. Kathy Kraninger, who was nominated to her current post by the president in 2018, had said she believed the president could fire her at any time. 495

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has agreed to review a court decision that the NCAA has said blurred “the line between student-athletes and professionals.” A lower court ruling removed caps on education-related money that certain football and basketball players can receive. The case will be argued before the Supreme Court in 2021 with a decision expected before the end of June. The NCAA contends that antitrust law allows its member schools to impose certain restrictions, like on athlete compensation, in an effort to promote competitive equity and have a product for dans that is distinct from professional sports, according to USA Today. The NCAA claims a change to this arrangement would have larger implications on professional level sports leagues. An appeals court panel in May upheld a lower court ruling barring the NCAA from capping education-related compensation and benefits for student-athletes in Division I football and basketball programs. Such benefits could include cash payments for academic performance. The lower court's ruling said the NCAA could still set limits on compensation not connected to education. The association has revealed proposed rule changes that would allow athletes to make money from their names, images and likeness. Those proposed changes are set to be voted on in January. Division I conferences can still independently set their own rules. 1395

Vladimir Putin is set to extend his power in Russia for another six years after winning Sunday's presidential election with the majority of the vote, exit polls show.Putin was widely expected to win his fourth term as President, with no meaningful opposition in the running and his?fiercest opponent, Alexei Navalny, barred from the race.Exit polls are not final, and official results will be released in coming hours.Putin has dominated Russian politics for 18 years and was already the country's longest-serving leader since Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.Putin's critics have slammed the election as unfair, citing the Kremlin's tight control over the media, quelling of the opposition and restrictions on some election monitors to ensure a free vote.Opposition activists and the non-governmental election monitoring group Golos reported voting irregularities. By early evening Sunday, Golos had counted 2,000 incidents, including observers being prevented from carrying out monitoring.The vote was a huge logistical undertaking, taking place across Russia's 11 time zones over 22 hours, in around 97,000 polling stations, according to the Central Election Commission.There was little fanfare in the campaign period and Russian news was dominated by developments in political crises between Russia and Western powers. 1327

WASHINGTON (AP) — In President Donald Trump's former life as a casino owner, he might have cheered Monday's ruling from the Supreme Court that struck down a federal law that barred every state but Nevada from allowing betting on most sporting events.But the Trump administration opposed the outcome reached by the high court at least in part because it could signal trouble in its legal fight against so-called sanctuary states and cities. Seven of the nine justices — five conservatives and two liberals — backed a robust reading of the Constitution's 10th Amendment and a limit on the federal government's power to force the states go along with Washington's wishes.The federal anti-gambling law is unconstitutional because "it unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion. "It's as if federal officers were installed in state legislative chambers and were armed with the authority to stop legislators from voting on any offending proposals."RELATED: San Diego County Board of Supervisors votes to support sanctuary state lawsuit against CaliforniaThere is a direct link between the court's decision in the sports betting case and the administration's effort to punish local governments that resist Trump's immigration enforcement policies, several legal commentators said."The court ruled definitively that the federal government can't force states to enforce federal law. In the immigration context, this means it can't require state or local officials to cooperate with federal immigration authorities," said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's immigrants' rights project, said the ruling reinforced decisions from the 1990s, including one that struck down part of a federal gun control law that required local police to determine if buyers were fit to own handguns.RELATED: Escondido?City Council votes to support sanctuary policy lawsuit"It reiterates that the real thrust of the 10th Amendment and the principles of law in this area is that the fed government can't tell the states or cities how to legislate," Jadwat said. The amendment says that powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the states.The gun law decision split the court's conservatives and liberals in 1997, in keeping with conservatives' complaints about the federal government's overreach and the importance of states' rights. But on Monday, Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined their more conservative colleagues.The Justice Department declined to comment on the decision, but it had called on the court to uphold the federal law at issue — the department's usual practice when federal laws are challenged — by arguing that there was no constitutional violation.RELATED: San Diego church becomes 'sanctuary congregation' amid immigration debateIn the most recent ruling about sanctuary cities, the federal appeals court in Chicago held last month that the federal government cannot withhold public safety grants from cities that won't go along with Trump's immigration enforcement policies.In lawsuits challenging the administration, cities argue that turning local police authorities into immigration officers erodes trust with minority communities and discourages residents from reporting crime. The administration says sanctuary jurisdictions allow dangerous criminals back on the street.The administration's efforts to crack down on places that don't comply with immigration authorities have taken several forms. Trump issued an executive order aimed at withholding federal money from recalcitrant jurisdictions. The administration also has sued California over three laws aimed at protecting immigrants in the country illegally. 3834

来源：资阳报