中山便血的可能原因中山大便完了有血,中山小揽有没有痛胃镜,中山肛周脓肿临床表现,中山痔疮非手术治疗方法,中山拉屎流血是怎么回事,中山肠镜检查要多少钱,中山拉肚子怎么办

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

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats in the House have approved a far-reaching policing overhaul. It's a vote heavy with emotion and symbolism as they seek to address the global outcry over the deaths of George Floyd and other Black Americans. But Congress is divided and chances for it becoming law are dim. A Senate Republican effort collapsed this week. President Donald Trump's administration says he will veto the Democratic bill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gathered with lawmakers on the Capitol steps to challenge Congress to not let the deaths be in vain. It’s exactly one month since Floyd’s death in police custody in Minneapolis sparked a global reckoning over police tactics and racial injustice.According to a Congressional summary of the bill, the legislation would: Limit qualified immunity as a defense to liability in a private civil action against a law enforcement officer or state correctional officerAuthorize the Department of Justice to issue subpoenas in investigations of police departments for a pattern or practice of discriminationLower the criminal intent standard—from willful to knowing or reckless—to convict a law enforcement officer for misconduct in a federal prosecutionThe bill also creates a national registry—the National Police Misconduct Registry—to compile data on complaints and records of police misconduct. 1350

VISTA, Calif. (CNS) - A murder conviction was reversed Friday for a 73-year-old former Valley Center resident, who was convicted in 2001 of killing her husband and was serving a 25-years-to-life sentence, but may receive a new trial due to newly discovered DNA evidence.Jane Dorotik was found guilty of the murder of 55-year-old Robert Dorotik, whose body was found on Feb. 13, 2000, one day after his wife said he disappeared after going jogging, prompting her to report him missing.District Attorney's Office spokesman Steve Walker said "newly discovered DNA evidence developed from advanced technology unavailable at the time of the 2001 jury trial" led the D.A.'s office to concede a habeas corpus petition filed by Dorotik's attorneys, thus reversing the conviction.Dorotik was released from the California Institution for Women in Corona in April amid the COVID-19 pandemic and will remain out of custody on her own recognizance. Attorneys will reconvene Oct. 23 to discuss the possibility of a retrial."After fighting for nearly 20 years to overturn my conviction, I am so grateful to finally see this day," Dorotik said in a statement released by her attorneys."Frankly, I'm a little overwhelmed at the moment," she said. "I have maintained from day one that I had nothing to do with my husband's murder. Spending almost two decades in prison falsely convicted of killing the man I loved has been incredibly painful. I lost literally everything in my life that Bob and I had built together."Prosecutors alleged that Dorotik beat her husband to death in their bedroom in the Valley Center horse ranch they rented, then dumped his body on the side of a road a few miles away.Medical examiners concluded he died of blunt force trauma to the head and strangulation, which prosecutors alleged was committed with a hammer and rope.The prosecution theory was that Dorotik killed her husband because she would have to pay him 40% of her income in the event of a divorce.Attorneys from Loyola Law School's Project for the Innocent say Dorotik was wrongfully convicted and submitted the habeas corpus petition alleging issues with the DNA evidence and testimony used to convict her.Her attorneys say newly conducted DNA testing of the victim's clothing, fingernails and a rope alleged to be one of the murder weapons showed no evidence of Dorotik's DNA, excluding her presence from the crime scene.They also alleged a prosecution expert witness testified during Dorotik's trial that stains found in the bedroom were her husband's blood, even though most of the stains were not tested and never confirmed to be blood at all.During an afternoon hearing at the Vista courthouse, Deputy District Attorney Karl Husoe said some of the new evidence stems from "the results of the retesting of some physical items of evidence" and noted "the DNA evidence as it exists now in 2020 is much different in quality and quantity than presented at trial in 2001."The prosecutor said the new evidence "undermines the previous evidence presented at trial to the extent that a new trial would be granted by this court."Additionally, Husoe said the D.A.'s office received "new information regarding lab personnel which our office was previously unaware of, but (was) recently made known to us," but did not elaborate on the content of that information.Walker said, "Ultimately, this office intends to pursue DNA testing and retesting of the available evidence in this case using modern and advanced DNA technology available to us today. Whatever the outcome of this additional testing may be, this office will commit resources to this matter in an effort to do all we can to seek the truth and pursue justice." 3696

Walmart announced Thursday that beginning in October, it will raise hourly wages for nearly 165,000 employees.The retail giant also introduced new leadership roles. 173

VISTA, Calif. (KGTV) -- Four students within the Vista Unified School District have tested positive for coronavirus within the last week, the district confirms.According to the district, two high school students, one middle school student, and an elementary school student have tested positive for COVID-19 since October 20.“We have notified all parents, students and staff members involved based on the COVID-19 identification and tracing protocol,” the district said Monday.RELATED: Vista Unified School District says second Mission Vista High student tests positive for COVID-19Officials say the students identified as COVID-19 positive didn’t come into close contact with every student, but the district says it’s “proceeding with an abundance of caution and considering each of these as close contacts.”“These students and staff members were placed into a 14-day quarantine at home in accordance with the Decision Guide requirements,” the district added. “Their classes will pivot to the virtual learning model using Canvas and Zoom as their learning platform.” 1074