济南尿道炎怎么回事(济南手滛过多阳痿怎么办) (今日更新中)

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 US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Black Lives Matter protest organizer Deray Mckesson.A Louisiana police officer had sued to hold Mckesson accountable for injuries the officer sustained in 2016 when he was hit by a heavy object.Mckesson didn't throw the object.The person who did is still unidentified.A lower court ruling had allowed the suit to move forward.Critics said the decision would dismantle the Civil Rights era precedent safeguarding the first amendment right to protest.The Supreme Court's decision wiped away the earlier ruling, sending the case back to the lower courts to further review Louisiana law.The justices ruled the case needed more guidance from state courts before important constitutional questions are considered. 758

The US Department of Justice said it is working on two fronts to ensure a fair and free election: To protect against voting fraud and to ensure voters’ civil rights are protected.As President Donald Trump continually claims that voting fraud is prevalent throughout the US, the Department of Justice said it has launched voting fraud hotlines to handle claims of voting fraud.While Trump has claimed that voting fraud could cast doubt on the legitimacy on the elections, there have been relatively few instances of recorded voting fraud. The White House released a Heritage Foundation report that found 1,071 instances of voting fraud, but those instances date back into the 20th century, making up a very small fraction of 1% of all votes cast since then.Department of Justice attorneys say they stand at the ready to assist voters in ensuring they will be able to vote on Election Day.“Ensuring free and fair elections depends in large part on the cooperation of the American electorate,” the US Attorneys’ Office said in a statement. “It is imperative that those who have specific information about discrimination or election fraud make that information available.”The DOJ said it will have FBI special agents available in each field office and resident agency throughout the country to receive allegations of election fraud and other election abuses on Election Day. In addition, those who believe federal voting rights have been violated can reach the FBI at 800-253-3931, or by filing a report here.What are possible violations of law?“Federal law protects against such crimes as intimidating or bribing voters, buying and selling votes, impersonating voters, altering vote tallies, stuffing ballot boxes, and marking ballots for voters against their wishes or without their input,” the US Attorneys Office said. “It also contains special protections for the rights of voters, and provides that they can vote free from acts that intimidate or harass them. For example, actions of persons designed to interrupt or intimidate voters at polling places by questioning or challenging them, or by photographing or videotaping them, under the pretext that these are actions to uncover illegal voting may violate federal voting rights law. Further, federal law protects the right of voters to mark their own ballot or to be assisted by a person of their choice (where voters need assistance because of disability or illiteracy).”For those looking to report possible instances of voting fraud, the Department of Justice encourages voters to call their region’s US Attorneys Office. 2586

The recommended amount of sleep for adults is six to eight hours a night. Sleeping more than those hours is associated with an increased risk of death and cardiovascular diseases, says a global study published Wednesday in the European Heart Journal.Looking at data from 21 countries, across seven regions, the research team found that people sleeping more than the recommended upper limit of eight hours increased their risk of risk of major cardiovascular events, like stroke or heart failure, as well as death by up to 41%.But a possible reason for this could be that people have underlying conditions causing them to sleep longer, which in turn could raise the risk of cardiovascular disease or mortality, explain the authors of the study.The team, led by Chuangshi Wang, a Ph.D. student at McMaster and Peking Union Medical College in China, also identified a rising risk among daytime nappers."Daytime napping was associated with increased risks of major cardiovascular events and deaths in those with [more than] six hours of nighttime sleep but not in those sleeping [less than] 6 hours a night," Wang said.In those who underslept, "a daytime nap seemed to compensate for the lack of sleep at night and to mitigate the risks," Wang explained.Previous studies into this topic were mainly carried out in North America, Europe and Japan. The new study brings a global picture.But the findings are observational, meaning the cause of this association remains unknown."Even though the findings were very interesting they don't prove cause and effect," said Julie Ward, a senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, who was not involved in the study.Having less sleep -- under six hours -- was also shown to increase these risks by 9%, compared with people who slept for the recommended six to eight hours, but this finding was not considered to be statistically significant by the team.In 2014, 35.2% of American adults reported not getting enough sleep with less than seven hours per night, according to the CDC. 2049

The Walt Disney Co. is planning to lay off 28,000 workers in its theme parks division in California and Florida.The company has been squeezed by limits on attendance at its parks and other restrictions due to the pandemic. Officials said Tuesday that two-thirds of the planned layoffs involve part-time workers but they ranged from salaried employees to nonunion hourly workers.In addition to the 28,000 nonunion workers, Disney said it is discussing next steps with unionized cast members.Disney’s parks closed last spring as the pandemic started spreading in the U.S. The Florida parks reopened this summer, but the California parks have yet to reopen as the company awaits guidance from the state of California.Disney along with local officials, have pressured California officials to resume operations at Disneyland. Disneyland has been ordered to remain closed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom.Newsom said a month ago that he would have an announcement soon on plans to allow for a reopening of amusement parks in California, including Disneyland.“In light of the prolonged impact of COVID-19 on our business, including limited capacity due to physical distancing requirements and the continued uncertainty regarding the duration of the pandemic – exacerbated in California by the State’s unwillingness to lift restrictions that would allow Disneyland to reopen – we have made the very difficult decision to begin the process of reducing our workforce at our Parks, Experiences and Products segment at all levels, having kept non-working Cast Members on furlough since April, while paying healthcare benefits,” said Josh D’Amaro, Disney Parks chairman. “Approximately 28,000 domestic employees will be affected, of which about 67% are part-time. We are talking with impacted employees as well as to the unions on next steps for union-represented Cast Members.” 1872

来源：资阳报