成都哪家医院治睾丸精索静脉曲张的好(成都哪个医院老烂腿手术做的好) (今日更新中)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Donald Trump officially named Amy Coney Barrett as his Supreme Court nominee over the weekend.What we know about herBarrett has long been rumored to be a possible Supreme Court justice and before being nominated, she was believed to be the favorite among conservatives to take the seat vacated by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.Barrett is currently serving on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and she spent several years as a professor at Notre Dame Law School, where she also earned her own law degree.Barrett is believed to be a true conservative, having formerly clerked for the late right-wing beacon Justice Antonin Scalia. If appointed to the high court, her rulings would likely be in line with her mentor. When accepting Trump’s nomination on Saturday, she said Scalia’s “judicial philosophy is mine, too.” Scalia helped popularize the idea of originalism, which follows the idea that courts should interpret the Constitution as it was originally intended by those who wrote it.In recent years, Barrett has sided with conservatives on cases involving immigration, guns rights and abortion.In a 2017 article, Barrett took issue with Chief Justice John Roberts’ ruling to keep the Affordable Care Act intact in 2012. Writing for the Norte Dame Law Journal, Barrett said “Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute."Barrett is also by legal standards young at only 48 years of age. Recently, both political parties have opted for younger justices to ensure they can serve for decades.Barrett and her husband, Jesse Barrett, a former federal prosecutor, have seven children, including two adopted from Haiti. They live in South Bend, Indiana, but the judge was born in New Orleans, Louisiana, where she was raised Catholic.If appointed to the Supreme Court, conservatives would hold a 6-3 majority over their liberal colleagues.Senate Republicans plan on swiftly moving forward with Barrett’s nomination, despite being weeks away from the general election.The confirmation process is sure to be a contentious one, with Democrats expected to highlight the possibility of the Affordable Care Act being dismantled and the fate of a woman’s right to choose in question.Watch Barrett accept the Supreme Court nomination: 2326

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Donald Trump’s physician said in a memo released by the White House Saturday night that the president is no longer at risk of transmitting the coronavirus."This evening I am happy to report that in addition to the President meeting the CDC criteria for the safe discontinuation of isolation, this morning’s COVID PCR sample demonstrates, by currently recognized standards, he is no longer considered a transmission risk to others," wrote physician Sean Conley.Conley said it’s been 10 days since Trump began experiencing symptoms of COVID-19, he’s been fever-free for “well over 24 hours” and all symptoms have “improved.”He said an assortment of advanced diagnostic tests reveal there is no longer evidence of actively replicating virus.“In addition, sequential testing throughout his illness has demonstrated decreasing viral loads that correlate with increasing cycle threshold times, as well as decreasing and now undetectable subgenomic mRNA,” wrote Conley.The doctor said that he will continue to monitor Trump “clinically” as he returns to an active schedule.The president has already announced that he plans to hold a rally in Florida on Friday as he ramps his re-election campaign back up. Saturday, he held an event at the White House, speaking to an audience from a balcony. 1312

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Democratic lawmakers in both chambers of Congress are introducing a bill that would ban the federal government from using biometric technology, including facial recognition technology.The bill would also effectively strip federal support for state and local law enforcement entities that use biometric technology. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass) is joining forces with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA-07) and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) to introduce the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act in the House and Senate.This measure comes amid growing calls from civil rights advocates who say facial recognition technology disproportionately misidentifies non-white individuals. It’s the first bicameral piece of legislation introduced that focuses on the tech since police brutality protests began about a month ago.In a press release, Markey cited a growing body a research that points to inaccuracy and bias issues with these technologies, which pose disproportionate risks to people of color.Markey points to a National Institute of Standards and Technology report on facial recognition tools that found Black, Brown and Asian people were up to 100 times more likely to be misidentified than white male faces.The bill’s introduction comes just one day after the ACLU amplified the story of a Black man in the Detroit area who says he was wrongfully arrested after this kind of technology misidentified him as a man seen stealing ,800 worth of watches.Specifically, the proposed legislation would do the following:Place a prohibition on the use of facial recognition technology by federal entities, which can only be lifted with an act of Congress;Place a prohibition on the use of other biometric technologies, including voice recognition, gate recognition, and recognition of other immutable physical characteristics, by federal entities, which can only be lifted with an act of Congress;Condition federal grant funding to state and local entities, including law enforcement, on those entities enacting their own moratoria on the use of facial recognition and biometric technology;Prohibit the use of federal dollars for biometric surveillance systems;Prohibit the use of information collected via biometric technology in violation of the Act in any judicial proceedings;Includes a private right of action for individuals whose biometric data is used in violation of the Act and allows for enforcement by state Attorneys General; andAllow states and localities to enact their own laws regarding the use of facial recognition and biometric technologies.“Facial recognition technology doesn’t just pose a grave threat to our privacy, it physically endangers Black Americans and other minority populations in our country,” said Markey. “As we work to dismantle the systematic racism that permeates every part of our society, we can’t ignore the harms that these technologies present. I’ve spent years pushing back against the proliferation of facial recognition surveillance systems because the implications for our civil liberties are chilling and the disproportionate burden on communities of color is unacceptable. In this moment, the only responsible thing to do is to prohibit government and law enforcement from using these surveillance mechanisms. I thank Representatives Jayapal and Pressley and Senator Merkley for working with me on this critical legislation.” 3433

WASHINGTON, D.C. – With Joe Biden projected to become the 46th president of the United States, both the former vice president and President Donald Trump are reacting.Shortly after The Associated Press called the race for Biden, he released a short statement, calling for unity now that he is the president-elect.Read Biden’s full statement below: 354

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.The ruling, just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, and electors almost always do so anyway.So-called faithless electors have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.A state may instruct “electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her majority opinion.The lawyer for the electors who challenged the state rules told The Associated Press that he’s glad the court acted now.“Obviously, we don’t believe the Court has interpreted the Constitution correctly. But we are happy that we have achieved our primary objective — this uncertainty has been removed. That is progress,” lawyer Lawrence Lessig said. 1123

来源：资阳报