中山痔疮割了会复发吗(中山华都肛肠医院特需门诊) (今日更新中)

The federal government and the court system have deemed variations of the phrase "go back to where you came from" when used by employees to be discriminatory, cases reviewed by CNN show.Since President Donald Trump tweeted that four progressive Democratic congresswomen of color "who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe" should "go back to where" they "came from" last Sunday, the President has insisted his comments were not racist. The four minority lawmakers he referenced -- Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts -- are all American citizens. Three of the four were born in the United States.While Trump is not the employer of these four congresswomen and therefore likely not subject to laws governing their work environment, the federal government has deemed the phrase he used to be discriminatory.CNN reviewed several complaints filed with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and found a few where similar language to what Trump used was considered evidence of discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC is a part of the federal government that enforces federal law to make sure employees are not discriminated against for their gender, sex, national origin or age.In 2007, the commission sued a company on behalf of a Muslim car salesperson of Indian descent who was repeatedly called "Taliban" and told that he should "just go back where [he] came from." EEOC also alleged a manager told the defendant "[t]his is America . . . not the Islamic country where you come from."The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals sided with EEOC's claim that the salesperson was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his national origin and religion. The court cited the example of use of the phrase several times in rendering its decision. The case is cited on EEOC's website in a section where it specifically lists the comment "go back to where you came from" as an example of "potentially unlawful conduct."In another case, EEOC filed a lawsuit against a California hospital on behalf of 70 Filipino-American hospital workers. The hospital workers alleged that they were the targets of harassing comments. Some Filipino-American workers were told they would be arrested if they did not speak English and were told to go back to the Philippines.The hospital settled the case in 2012 agreeing to pay nearly million dollars in the EEOC national origin discrimination suit.New York University, one of the largest private universities in the country, agreed to pay 0,000 to settle a race and national origin harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC. In 2011, the commission alleged that NYU violated federal law by subjecting a Ghanaian-born employee to a hostile work environment that included "degrading verbal harassment." Settling a case is not necessarily an admission of wrongdoing.According to the EEOC's suit, the supervisor of the mailroom in NYU's Elmer Holmes Bobst Library regularly addressed the employee, a native of Ghana, with slurs like "monkey" and "gorilla" and insults such as "go back to your cage."In a 2006 case between a postal worker and a coworker, the postal worker said she faced discrimination in the workplace after a coworker said, "If you can't speak English, you don't belong here. Learn to speak better or go back to your own country." In this case, the EEOC found sufficient evidence to make a harassment claim.CNN legal analyst Laura Coates said Trump's tweets, "although obviously racist to the public," may not be unlawful in the case of the President."The EEOC guidelines are clear but they relate to employment," Coates said. "Congress doesn't work for the President. I'm not sure they could use the same claim of a hostile work environment based on a political atmosphere." 3896

The Dallas apartment complex that suffered damage from a crane collapse has been deemed "totally unusable," and residents will be refunded their security deposits and June rent.Two days after the tragic accident that left one woman, 29-year-old Kiersten Smith, dead, officials told residents they will be allowed back in to retrieve their belongings, but they will no longer be able to reoccupy their apartments.According to Dallas Fire-Rescue, apartment complex management will arrange for moving trucks to facilitate the move.Greystar, the apartment management company, is meeting with City of Dallas officials to determine the safest options to remove the personal belongings and vehicles of all the residents, according to a letter issued to residents Tuesday.No determination has been made regarding the removal of the crane from the property, according to DFR. Three people remain in the hospital.Sunday's tragedy marked the ninth crane accident death in North Texas since 2012, CNN affiliate KTVT reported. From 2011 to 2015, Texas had about four times more crane-related deaths than any other state.'It just sliced through the building'Abbey Kearney, who lived in the Dallas apartment complex, said the disaster happened quickly."It was like a sunny, beautiful day and people were at the pool," she said. "And then it just got dark very quickly, and the wind picked up something fierce. It got dark, and it was over in a matter of seconds."She saw three umbrellas shoot straight up into the air. All the pool furniture flew into the pool.Then she saw the crane plummet."It just sliced through the building ... like a hot knife through butter," Kearney said. "It went from the fifth floor to, from what I can tell, the third floor."Concrete floors of the parking garage ripped like paper. Rows of vehicles fell several stories below and lay heaped in a mangled mess."There were cars that were vertical," she said. 1932

The House on Wednesday easily defeated an effort from a Texas Democrat to impeach President Donald Trump in the first vote that Congress has taken related to impeachment since Democrats took control of the chamber.Only 95 of the 435 members voted against the motion to table the impeachment vote.Rep. Al Green was able to force the vote under House rules, in what amounted to the most direct challenge yet to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's handling of impeachment.The vote showcased the stark divide among Democrats, who split over the vote to kill the impeachment measure.His decision to bring up his impeachment resolution presented a dilemma for impeachment supporters and moderate Democrats alike, as they're now on the record on a vote related to impeachment, even if Green's resolution was only focused on one issue — what he says is the President's "bigotry and racism" — of many where Democrats are wrestling with whether to move forward on impeachment. .Green was able to force the House to take up his impeachment articles because it's considered a privileged resolution under the House rules. While any House member can introduce a privileged resolution on the floor — and Green introduced similar resolutions twice while Republicans were control — Pelosi has until now held her party back from doing so since Democrats took control of chamber, despite more than 80 members pushing for the start of an impeachment inquiry.Republicans helped Democrats table the resolution to show bipartisan opposition to impeaching the President on the grounds laid out in the Green resolution, according to a senior GOP leadership aide. The White House wanted a strong vote to kill the resolution, a source familiar with White House thinking said.Ahead of the vote, Green dismissed calls from within his party to hold off on the resolution, which he introduced Tuesday evening, arguing that impeachment should follow Tuesday's House vote that condemned the President's racist tweets."I should not hold off, we should go forward as expeditiously as possible and we should do so because on yesterday we convicted the President ... The condemnation was a conviction. Today we have the opportunity to punish," Green said a reference to the resolution that passed Tuesday condemning racist language used by the President. "As a result of what we did yesterday, the President suffers no harm, he doesn't have to pay any fine, he's not going to lose his job. But today we have the opportunity to punish."Democrats have been wrestling with the question of impeachment since taking control of the House, and now more than a third of House Democrats publicly support opening an impeachment inquiry. But Pelosi has resisted those efforts, saying they should not move forward with impeachment unless the public is on their side."With all the respect in the world for him, we have six committees that are working on following the facts in terms of any abuse of power, obstruction of justice and the rest that the President may have engaged in," Pelosi said. "That is the serious path that we are on, not that Mr. Green is not serious, but we'll deal with that on the floor."Green is bringing up the impeachment resolution a week before special counsel Robert Mueller testifies publicly before the House, an event that many impeachment backers say will be key to sway the public — and skeptical lawmakers — on impeachment."Our focus should be on making sure that the Mueller hearing goes well," said House Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries of New York.Other House Democrats who support beginning an impeachment inquiry — and in some cases moving forward with articles of impeachment — said they would support Green's measure, even if they didn't agree with his decision to bring it up now."If I thought it was a really good idea I'd have done it myself," said Rep. Steve Cohen, a Tennessee Democrat who will support Green's resolution."I don't think this is the wisest moment," said Rep. Veronica Escobar, a Texas Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. "I mean, believe me, this is something that I wrestle with myself and I think that the president is unfit for office and so I need to think through it, but ... we have an important process ahead that we really need to follow."But Green said he chose to move forward with his resolution because he thinks Congress should send Trump "a powerful message that this country will not tolerate bigotry, racism, hate, xenophobia, Islamophobia."He noted that his impeachment resolution is not connected to Mueller or the findings of his investigation."You don't delay justice. The Mueller hearing has nothing to do with what we're doing now. The Mueller hearing is all about obstruction, this is about bigotry and racism and that racism that's been infused into policy," Green said.In December 2017 and January 2018, Green also introduced privileged impeachment resolutions, which were both tabbed by the Republican-led House. The resolutions were killed in votes of 364-58 and 355-66, respectively, with a majority of Democrats joining Republicans to defeat them in both cases. 5118

The 2020 Democratic field may have gained a contender Thursday with Beto O'Rourke -- but it officially lost an eligible bachelor in Cory Booker.Actress and activist Rosario Dawson confirmed Thursday rumors that the two are dating, telling 251

The impeachment process is one that isn’t used very often, but it’s been around since the birth of the U.S. Constitution.“It was an idea as a check on the abuse of political power,” said Norman Provizer, a professor of political science at Metropolitan State University of Denver.He said impeachment is like an indictment. It doesn't mean the president is automatically booted out of office. When a simple majority of the House of Representatives votes to impeach, the next step is a trial in the Senate. The president can then be removed from office by a two-thirds vote in the senate.Only three U.S. presidents ever have been impeached: Presidents Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Johnson and Clinton both managed to finish their terms in office. President Richard Nixon actually resigned before the House of Representatives could pass the impeachment articles against him.“Andrew Johnson, one of the charges against him was he didn’t follow an act passed by Congress. And that is illegal, you can’t do that,” Provizer said.Provizer said there was a lot of disagreement between Johnson and Congress during his term in the 1860s. Clinton’s impeachment more than a century later had little to do with Congress. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman," Clinton said at a White House press conference in 1998.Turns out Clinton did have an affair with a White House intern, despite denying it during testimony.“There is a thing about perjury — lying under oath. All of it’s surrounding sexual activities, if you will,” Provizer said.Impeachment isn’t only for presidents. In fact, Provizer said it’s mainly used to try and potentially remove federal judges.“It says in the constitution the president, the vice president and other civil officers," the professor said.Provizer said presidential impeachments are often most noteworthy because they come with dramatic storylines. He says people start to draw connections between different impeachment proceedings. For example, the partisan divide we’re facing now was seen during Nixon’s administration.“It looks like the Republicans are defending him, and the Democrats are going after him. I mean, that’s how it’s viewed — very partisan. But as it unfolds and more information comes out, basically, many Republicans drop their effort to defend him.”As of now, most of the Republican party has remained loyal to Trump. In the end, Provizer said all impeachment proceedings have been fundamentally the same. They simply deal with different subject matter.“If you give a government power, what do you also have to be concerned with? The ability to check that power," Provizer said. "You need both. Otherwise you have authoritarian rule."  2722

来源：资阳报