中山内痔治疗的费用是多少中山哪里做痔疮手术比较好,中山肚子痛便血去哪个科室看,中山做薇创痔疮哪个医院好,中山拉屎啦出血怎么回事,治痔疮中山医院,中山拉大便菊花流血,中山幼儿大便带血是什么原因

The Supreme Court appears deeply divided about whether it can address partisan gerrymandering and come up with a standard to decide when politicians go too far in using politics to draw congressional districts that benefit one party over another.Hearing a case on Wednesday challenging a district in Maryland, several of the justices suggested that the issue could be addressed by the courts, but grappled with how to devise a manageable standard to govern future legislative maps.How the court rules could dramatically impact future races, as Democrats try to win back the House amid widespread unhappiness at President Donald Trump. Recently a state court in Pennsylvania redrew congressional districts there, possibly serving to erase the Republicans' 12-6 district advantage.Wednesday's case was brought by a group of Republican voters in Maryland who say Democrats went too far in redrawing districts after the last census.At one point during their one hour of oral arguments, Justice Stephen Breyer wondered whether the court should take the two challenges it has already heard dealing with maps in Wisconsin and Maryland, and another case out of North Carolina and hold arguments again next fall.The suggestion could have interesting implications if Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been considering retirement and could be a key vote in the case, were to step down at the end of this term.On the issue of partisan gerrymandering, Breyer acknowledged that there seemed like "a pretty clear violation of the Constitution in some form" but he worried that the court needed a "practical remedy" so that judges would not have to get involved in "dozens and dozens and dozens of very important political decisions."Justice Elena Kagan pointed to the case at hand and said that Democrats had gone "too far" and took a "safe" Republican district and made it into a "pretty safe one" for Democrats. She referenced a deposition that then Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley gave where he said his intent was to create a map "that all things being legal and equal, would nonetheless be more likely to elect more Democrats rather than less."Kagan asked a lawyer for Maryland, "How much more evidence of partisan intent could we need?"Breyer seemed to urge his more conservative colleagues to step in, for the first time, and devise a framework for how to address gerrymandering.Pointing to the particular facts in the case he said, "We will never have such a record again.""What do we do, just say goodbye... forget it," Breyer asked.The challengers say former Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley led the charge to redraw the lines to unseat long-time GOP incumbent Rep. Roscoe Bartlett. They argue that Democrats diluted the votes of Republicans in the district by moving them to another district that had a safe margin for Democrats.In 2010, Bartlett won his district with by 28 percentage points, but he lost after the new maps were drawn in 2012 by 21 percentage points.But Justice Samuel Alito seemed to be on the other side of the spectrum and said, "Hasn't this Court said time and again you can't take all consideration of partisan advantage out of redistricting?"Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote could be critical, did not tip his hand but indicated that the current map, no matter what happens in the court, would have to be used in the next cycle.While the Supreme Court has a standard limiting the overreliance on race in map drawing except under the most limited circumstances, it has never been successful in developing a test concerning political gerrymandering. If the justices do come up with a standard, it could reshape the political landscape.In court, Michael Kimberly, a lawyer for the challengers, said that the Democratic politicians violated the free speech rights of voters by retaliating against them based on their party registration and prior voting history.He said that government officials may not "single out" a voter based on the votes he cast before.Maryland Solicitor General Steven Sullivan defended the map and suggested that the courts should stay out of an issue that is "inherently political." He argued that if the challengers prevail in their First Amendment challenge, it will mean that any partisan motive by political players would constitutionally doom all district maps.Justice Neil Gorsuch, appearing to agree with Sullivan, noted that the maps had been approved by the legislature.The challengers suffered a setback in the lower court when a special three-judge panel of federal judges refused to issue a preliminary injunction.Last year, the Supreme Court heard a similar political gerrymandering case in Wisconsin.That case was a statewide challenge brought by Democratic challengers to Republican-drawn state legislative maps. Challengers rely on both the First Amendment charge and say the maps violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.It is unclear why the Supreme Court added the Maryland case to the docket after hearing arguments in the Wisconsin case. 5026

The Rev. Pat Conroy, the chaplain at the US House of Representatives, has rescinded his resignation in a letter, obtained by CNN, following a week's worth of lawmakers from both parties questioning House Speaker Paul Ryan's request that Conroy step down."At this time, and upon advice of counsel, I herby retract and rescind said resignation for the reasons that follow," Conroy writes in the letter dated Thursday and addressed to Ryan.Conroy, a Jesuit priest, resigned April 15 after he spent nearly seven years praying at the outset of House sessions. He wrote two versions of his resignation letter, which were also obtained by CNN from a congressional source. In the first version, he wrote that Ryan, who is Catholic, should consult with his chief of staff on a resignation date, but the second version stated his last day would be May 24. 853

The Supreme Court Monday rebuffed efforts by states to block funding to Planned Parenthood.It left in place two lower court opinions that said that states violate federal law when they terminate Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood affiliates who offer preventive care for low income women.It would have taken four justices to agree to hear the issue, and only three conservative justices -- Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch -- voted to hear the case.Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared to side with the court's liberals in not taking up the case -- showing an effort to avoid high-profile abortion-related issues for now.Roberts and Kavanaugh "likely have serious objections," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "But such votes seem to be a signal that they would rather avoid contentious, high-profile disputes for now, at least where possible."The case concerned whether states can block Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood affiliates that provide such women with annual health screens, contraceptive coverage and cancer screening.Thomas wrote a dissent for the three conservatives, saying the court isn't doing its job."What explains the Court's refusal to do its job here?" Thomas wrote."I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named Planned Parenthood," he wrote."But these cases are not about abortion rights," he said. "They are about private rights of action under the Medicaid Act. Resolving the question presented here would not even affect Planned Parenthood's ability to challenge the states' decisions; it concerns only the rights of individual Medicaid patients to bring their own suits."The-CNN-Wire? & ? 2018 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved. 1873

The video streaming service Netflix has been indicted by a grand jury in Texas over the film “Cuties,” alleging the company used “lewd” images."Cuties" is a French film that follows the story of an 11-year-old Senegalese immigrant in France who rebels against her family's Muslim traditions and joins a free-spirited dance crew.The film, directed by Ma?mouna Doucouré and originally called “Mignonnes”, won a directing award at Sundance Film Festival earlier this year.A Tyler County, Texas grand jury moved to return an indictment against Netflix last month, according to multiple media reports.The complaint alleges Netflix knowingly promoted visual material which “depicts the lewd exhibition of the genitals or public area of a clothed or partially clothed child who was younger than 18 years of age at the time the visual material was created, which appeals to the prurient interest in sex, and has no serious, literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”In response, Netflix stated “‘Cuties’ is a social commentary against the sexualization of young children,” according to a statement in Deadline. “This charge is without merit and we stand by the film.”Netflix was reportedly served a summons October 1.Earlier this summer Netflix was forced to apologize for what they called “inappropriate art work” used to promote the movie on their service.The main image Netflix originally used shows the four lead actresses, all girls, wearing black and turquoise dance outfits revealing their stomachs and most of their legs, while posed mid-dance.The images used in France for the film show the girls walking down the street holding shopping bags.The film is recommended for 16+, according to Netflix. The image and description for the film have been updated in Netflix.The poster sparked outrage online, and with some comparing the poster to pedophilia. In the days following the release of the artwork, thousands had signed a Change.org petition calling for the film to be removed from Netflix. The film is now available on the service.Doucouré said the film is based in part on her own childhood experiences, and those of girls growing up today.“This is most of all an uncompromising portrait of an 11-year-old girl plunged in a world that imposes a series of dictates on her.” She said in an interview with Cineuropa.She continued that it is important to not judge these girls, but to understand them, listen to them and give them a voice. 2458

The US asked China to close Consulate General in Houston in 72 hours. This is a crazy move.— Hu Xijin 胡锡进 (@HuXijin_GT) July 22, 2020 141