梅州可视人流咨询(梅州处女膜修护多少钱) (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 state of Massachusetts has ordered that children 6 months of age or older must obtain a flu vaccine by the end of December to attend any daycare, school or college in the state starting in January.The August 20 announcement was met with protest on Sunday. Hundreds held a protest in Boston, demanding the state rescind the order."They are forcing to inject something into our child and we don't agree with it,” protester Mike Megna told WBZ."I've been really stressed out about it. I am thinking of having home schooling until this gets reversed, but I am not going to let them pressure me to get the flu shot,” Jennifer Cordy also told WBZ. Cordy is the mother of 10-year-old student Xavier Cordy.But officials say that the flu vaccine is an important way for public health officials to reduce hospitalizations and deaths, even though the vaccine won’t provide protection from the coronavirus.“Every year, thousands of people of all ages are affected by influenza, leading to many hospitalizations and deaths,” said Dr. Larry Madoff, a medical director with the state's Department of Public Health. “It is more important now than ever to get a flu vaccine because flu symptoms are very similar to those of COVID-19 and preventing the flu will save lives and preserve healthcare resources.”The state is providing exemptions for medical or religious based reasons. Massachusetts is also exempting K-12 homeschoolers as well as college students who are fully off campus and do not attend in-person classes. There is not an exemption for K-12 students who are partaking in virtual learning through their school. 1620

The winning numbers for Tuesday night's Mega Millions .6 billion jackpot are 28, 70, 5, 62, 65 with Mega Ball 5.No one in the California won the entire jackpot Tuesday night, but several tickets did match five of six numbers, the state lottery says. Eight of those tickets sold in San Luis Obispo, Stockton, Rancho Cucamonga, San Diego, Chatsworth, Arcadia, Norwalk and San Francisco. The near-winning ticket in San Diego sold at a Chevron gas station in Del Cerro.  491

The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation now projects that 67,000 American lives would be saved between now and December 1 by near universal wearing of masks.The IHME released the updated model on Thursday. As part of the update, the IHME said that four states, Arizona, Florida, Mississippi, and South Carolina, have hit an important metric of a daily death rate of eight per one million residents, and that those states should re-impose statewide closures of non-essential businesses.The IHME’s coronavirus projections have been frequently cited in the past by the White House’s coronavirus task force. The group uses state data along with other metrics to create projections on the number of coronavirus-related deaths throughout the US.The model projects with inconsistent use of masks, the US death toll for the coronavirus will be up to 295,000 by December 1, an increase from the current figure of 158,000, per Johns Hopkins University data. The IHME’s projections drops considerably to 228,000 if masks are worn universally outside of the home.IHME director Dr. Christopher Murray said at a news conference on Thursday that mask wearing mandates work, but communities also respond when they see cases are spreading.“People do respond to the circumstances in their community,” Murray said. “Mandates have an important effect.”One thing the model does not take into account is the use of therapeutics of a possible vaccine. Murray said that the IHME is closely monitoring the effectiveness of two potential therapeutics – remdesivir and dexamethasone – and may adjust future models as more is learned about those drugs.The model expects the number of coronavirus-related deaths to ebb and flow into the fall, but begin to increase by November. "November is a month we expect the spread to increase due to seasonality," Murray said. We are expecting considerable daily deaths. That pushes up our projections."“We expect it rise later in the fall,” Murray added.One cause for concern comes at the end of November when families begin to travel for holidays such as Thanksgiving.Murray said that while mask-wearing is not necessary when around family members of the same household, he said mask-wearing may be necessary for holiday gatherings. Murray said his family is taking the recommendation one step further, and is simply not gathering with extended relatives this fall.What’s built into the IHME’s projection is that a number of states will need to implement stricter closures in order to slow the spread. As part of the IHME’s recommendation, states implement closures of non-essential businesses when there is a threshold of eight deaths a day per million. Also part of the modeling is based on 50% of schools being closed in each state for the upcoming year. Murray said with many schools opening or implementing hybrid models, more will be learned in the coming weeks on how easily the virus spreads within schools.Recent measures in Arizona, California, Florida, and Texas has allowed a small decline in cases, but deaths in those states have not dropped off, according to Murray.“We have been seeing cases peaking and hospitalizations peaking and deaths not quite yet peaking, but we expect them to peak in the near future but we don’t expect a sharp decline," Murray said.To see a state-by-state breakdown of the IHME’s projections, click here. 3403

The Supreme Court on Tuesday invalidated a provision of federal law that requires the mandatory deportation of immigrants who have been convicted of some crimes, holding that the law is unconstitutionally vague.The case, Sessions v. Dimaya, had been closely watched to see if the justices would reveal how they will consider the Trump administration's overall push to both limit immigration and increase deportations.As expected after the oral argument, Justice Neil Gorsuch joined with the more liberal justices for the first time since joining the court to produce a 5-4 majority invalidating the federal statute. In doing so, Gorsuch was continuing the jurisprudence of Justice Antonin Scalia, who also sided with liberals when it came to the vagueness of statutes used to convict criminal defendants.Only eight justices heard the case last term after Scalia's death, and in late June, the court announced it would re-hear arguments this term, presumably so that Gorsuch could break some kind of a tie.Dimaya, a native of the Philippines, was admitted to the United States in 1992 as a lawful permanent resident. In 2007 and 2009, he pleaded no contest to charges of residential burglary in California and an immigration judge determined that Dimaya was removable from the US because of his two state court convictions.The court held that the convictions qualified for an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes removal of non-citizens who have been convicted of some violent crimes and defines aggravated felony to include "crimes of violence."Lawyers for Dimaya appealed the removal arguing that it was unconstitutionally vague and that their client never had fair notice that his crimes would result in deportation.They suggested the reasoning of a 2015 Scalia opinion, which struck a provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act as unconstitutionally vague, should extend to their case.  1945

来源：资阳报