治发狂那里好南昌(南昌第十二医院在线咨询) (今日更新中)

Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court confirmation hearings concluded Thursday with the Senate Judiciary Committee setting a full Senate vote to seat her on the Supreme Court on Oct. 22.Should more than half of Senators vote to confirm Barrett next week — and the Republican-controlled Senate appears to have the votes to do so — there will be time to seat the judge on the Supreme Court ahead of the 2020 election on Nov. 3.Democrats attempts to delay the vote reached a peak on Thursday, as Democratic senators on the committee opened the Thursday by filing motions to push back a committee vote.Thursday's portion of the hearing opened with only one Democrat — Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois — in the room. Durbin argued that a quorum was not present and that the hearing should be delayed. The Republican-controlled committee quickly voted to change the rules to proceed with the hearing and set the date for a vote on Barrett's confirmation for Oct. 22.Following that vote, Democratic committee members called for motions to delay a vote on Barrett's confirmation. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, called the process "rushed," and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota called it a "sham." Republicans, like Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, offered a defense of the proceedings, saying they were within historical precedent.Graham allowed all lawmakers who wish to speak on the proposed motions to delay a vote will have the opportunity to do so, but added that he "hated it" for the witnesses who were scheduled to speak at the hearing later on Thursday. Witness testimony did not begin until nearly two hours after they were originally scheduled to start.The witnesses are to speak to Barrett's character before committee members give their closing statements. They include apolitical experts from the American Bar Association and the Federal Judiciary, as well as witnesses called by both Democrats and Republicans.Witnesses from the American Bar Association said they deemed Barrett qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, basing their decision solely on her judicial acumen.Witnesses called by Democrats argued that Barrett's nomination threatens several precedents, like legal abortion, public healthcare and LGBGTQ+ rights. Witnesses called by Republicans spoke to Barrett's personal character and her reputation as a "textualist" and "Constitutional originalist."Barrett was present at the hearing for any part of Thursday's hearings.Throughout her two days of questioning, Barrett attempted to mostly avoid sharing her views on hotly-debated judicial topics like abortion and public healthcare. However, President Donald Trump has said in the past that he would only nominate a judge to the court who would work to overrule the Affordable Care Act and abortion protections provided in Roe v. Wade, and Barrett's past opinions make it clear that she fits those qualifications. Graham himself lauded Barrett as an "unabashedly pro-life" and "conservative" woman during Wednesday's hearing. 3001

Judge Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court confirmation hearings concluded Thursday with the Senate Judiciary Committee setting a full Senate vote to seat her on the Supreme Court on Oct. 22.Should more than half of Senators vote to confirm Barrett next week — and the Republican-controlled Senate appears to have the votes to do so — there will be time to seat the judge on the Supreme Court ahead of the 2020 election on Nov. 3.Democrats attempts to delay the vote reached a peak on Thursday, as Democratic senators on the committee opened the Thursday by filing motions to push back a committee vote.Thursday's portion of the hearing opened with only one Democrat — Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois — in the room. Durbin argued that a quorum was not present and that the hearing should be delayed. The Republican-controlled committee quickly voted to change the rules to proceed with the hearing and set the date for a vote on Barrett's confirmation for Oct. 22.Following that vote, Democratic committee members called for motions to delay a vote on Barrett's confirmation. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, called the process "rushed," and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota called it a "sham." Republicans, like Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, offered a defense of the proceedings, saying they were within historical precedent.Graham allowed all lawmakers who wish to speak on the proposed motions to delay a vote will have the opportunity to do so, but added that he "hated it" for the witnesses who were scheduled to speak at the hearing later on Thursday. Witness testimony did not begin until nearly two hours after they were originally scheduled to start.The witnesses are to speak to Barrett's character before committee members give their closing statements. They include apolitical experts from the American Bar Association and the Federal Judiciary, as well as witnesses called by both Democrats and Republicans.Witnesses from the American Bar Association said they deemed Barrett qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, basing their decision solely on her judicial acumen.Witnesses called by Democrats argued that Barrett's nomination threatens several precedents, like legal abortion, public healthcare and LGBGTQ+ rights. Witnesses called by Republicans spoke to Barrett's personal character and her reputation as a "textualist" and "Constitutional originalist."Barrett was present at the hearing for any part of Thursday's hearings.Throughout her two days of questioning, Barrett attempted to mostly avoid sharing her views on hotly-debated judicial topics like abortion and public healthcare. However, President Donald Trump has said in the past that he would only nominate a judge to the court who would work to overrule the Affordable Care Act and abortion protections provided in Roe v. Wade, and Barrett's past opinions make it clear that she fits those qualifications. Graham himself lauded Barrett as an "unabashedly pro-life" and "conservative" woman during Wednesday's hearing. 3001

Jennifer and Sarah Hart's 6-year-old daughter told a Minnesota public school teacher in 2010 that she had "owies" on her tummy and back after her mother hit her with her fist, leaving bruises.Alarmed, the teacher alerted social services and police, who launched a criminal investigation. Six months later, Sarah Hart pleaded guilty to an assault charge and was sentenced to probation, county records show.Just a week later, the Harts' six adopted children were pulled from their public schools in favor of a home-school setting, said Jill Johnson, a spokeswoman for the district, based in the small town of Alexandria.They never returned to public schools.The family moved, then moved again. Neighbors lodged new claims of maltreatment. Then, two weeks ago, as child protection workers in Washington state were trying to contact the Harts, their SUV plunged off a cliff in California, killing the parents and at least three children. The other three remain missing but are believed to have been inside the SUV. Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman, who is heading the investigation, says he believes the crash was intentional.The Harts' experience highlights what experts told CNN are classic signs of abusive parents isolating their children from other adults, including those who are mandated by law to report suspected abuse to authorities, such as teachers, doctors and police.The combination of frequent moves, home-schooling and seclusion from neighbors, along with using food as a means of control -- all in play in the Hart case -- can signal the possibility of abuse, experts said."When you see families that are going to great extremes to keep their kids out of view," said David Finkelhor, the director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center, "that's a red flag." 1789

Judge Amy Coney Barrett described during her confirmation hearing Tuesday the "personal" and "difficult" conversations her family was forced to have following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis earlier this year.Barrett is the mother of nine children. Two of those children are adopted and are Black."As you can imagine, given that I have two Black children, that was very, very, personal to me and my family," Barrett said.Barrett said her husband and her sons were on a camping trip when a video went viral that showed Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck for more than eight minutes prior to Floyd's death. Barrett described watching the video with her adoptive daughter, Vivian."For her to understand that there might be a risk to her brother — or a son she might have one day — of that kind of brutality has been an ongoing conversation," Barrett said. "And a difficult one like it has been happening for Americans all over the country."Barrett added that it was especially difficult for some of her younger children to grasp."My children, to this point in their lives, have had the benefit of growing up in a cocoon where they have not yet experienced hatred or violence," she said.Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, then asked if she felt that if she believes overt or systemic racism existed in America."I think it is an entirely uncontroversial and obvious statement given, as we just talked about, the George Floyd video, that racism exists in our country," Barrett said.However, she stopped short of calling racism in America "systemic," saying that in her role as a judge that she was unable to do so."As to the nature of putting my finger on the problem...or how to tackle the issue of making it better, those things are policy questions," Barrett said. "They're hotly contested policy questions that have been in the news and discussed all summer. As I did share my personal experience — and I'm happy to discuss the reaction our family had to the George Floyd video — giving broader statements or making broader diagnoses is beyond what I'm capable of doing as a judge." 2123

Just three weeks before facing voters, Sen. Kamala Harris questioned Judge Amy Coney Barrett for 30 minutes during Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing on Tuesday.Harris, Joe Biden’s running mate and Democratic candidate for vice president, largely used her allotted time to point toward President Donald Trump’s campaign goal of eliminating the Affordable Care Act.Democrats, like Harris, have zeroed in on their belief that Barrett would vote to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, which was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Barack Obama nearly a decade ago.Just one week after the election, the Supreme Court will hear another GOP-led challenge to the law. In 2012, the Affordable Care Act was “saved” in a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court as justices said that the law should stand as it levied a tax penalty for those without health care. In 2017, the individual mandate was struck down, meaning there is no longer a tax penalty component to Obamacare. Now the argument comes back to the Supreme Court, as Republicans claim the court's previous ruling is moot given there is no longer a tax penalty.Harris pointed to a previous op-ed pinned by Barrett when she was a law professor at Notre Dame to claim Barrett would rule against Obamacare. Barrett wrote that the Affordable Care Act should have been overturned in 2012."You've already opined the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. And that position satisfied the president's promise to only nominate judges who would tear down the Affordable Care Act,” Harris said.Barrett fired back, and added that she has made no commitment to the Trump administration on overturning the act.“Question would be figuring out whether Congress, assuming that the mandate is unconstitutional now, whether that consistent with your intent,” Barrett said.Harris then pressed Barrett on her views on Roe vs. Wade. Barrett said multiple times throughout the hearing that she would not offer an opinion on the 1970s-era ruling that largely has kept abortion legal throughout the US.“I would suggest that we not pretend that we don't know how this nominee views a woman's right to choose,” Harris said.Harris was questioned by Mike Pence at last week’s vice presidential debate on whether her and Biden would be supportive of expanding the Supreme Court. Harris avoided the question, and Biden had largely avoided the question until last night, stating he was not supportive of expanding the Supreme Court. 2487

来源：资阳报