濮阳东方妇科医院做人流手术专业吗(濮阳东方医院男科割包皮非常靠谱) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A new report says California, which has a declining prison population, could save more than billion by closing eight lockups. The Legislative Analyst’s Office released a report Thursday saying the state has seen a reduction in its inmate population because of early releases and other actions linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. The report also says parole and sentencing law changes may flatten the prison population in the next few years. The report says the population changes, coupled with closing five adult prisons and three juvenile facilities, could save the corrections system .5 billion a year by 2025."The administration has indicated it plans to close one prison in 2021?22 and another in 2022?23 in order to accommodate the ongoing decline in the inmate population, primarily resulting from Proposition 57 (2016)" the analysis reads. "The budget package includes legislation requiring CDCR to inform the Legislature of the specific prisons to be closed by January 10, 2021 and January 10, 2022. The administration estimates the closures will result in 0 million in ongoing savings annually within a few years." 1162

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A staunchly conservative political party in deep-blue California will get to keep its name after the governor vetoed a bill aimed at banning what state lawmakers say are misleading monikers.Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Wednesday he had vetoed a bill that would have banned political parties from using "no party preference," ''decline to state" or "independent" in their official names.The bill would have applied to all political parties. But it was aimed at the American Independent Party, which has been an option for California voters since 1968.More California voters are registering with no party preference, now accounting for 28.3% of all registered voters. If "no party preference" were a political party, it would be the second largest in the state behind the Democrats.Critics say the American Independent Party has benefited from this trend because its name confuses voters into believing they are registering as independents. The party makes up 2.59% of California's registered voters, making it the third largest political party in the state after the Democratic Party at 43.1% and the Republican Party at 23.6%.In 2016, the Los Angeles Times surveyed the party's registered members and found most did not know they had registered to vote with the party. But Newsom said he vetoed the bill because he worried it was unconstitutional."By requiring one existing political party to change its current name, this bill could be interpreted as a violation of the rights of free speech and association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution," Newsom wrote in his veto message.Representatives for the American Independent Party did not respond to an email and phone call seeking comment. The party's website says it nominated Donald Trump for president in 2016 and "God willing, 2020."Democratic Sen. Tom Umberg, the bill's author, warned the mistaken registration could have electoral consequences. People registered with another political party would not be allowed to vote in the state's pivotal Democratic presidential primary in March.But Newsom signed another bill by Umberg that could help people rectify any registration mistakes. The law, signed Tuesday, allows voters to register to vote or update their registration at all polling places on election day.If people show up to vote in the Democratic presidential primary and are ineligible because they are registered with the American Independent Party, they can change their registration on the spot and cast a ballot. The ballot would be conditional, meaning it would not be counted until after the person's registration could be verified. 2676

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California is moving to eliminate what state legislators call an outdated Wild West law requiring that citizens help police upon demand.Lawmakers on Thursday sent Gov. Gavin Newsom a measure eliminating the California Posse Comitatus Act of 1872.The nearly 150-year-old law makes it a misdemeanor with a fine of up to ,000 for failing to help police make an arrest or catch a fleeing suspect.Democratic Sen. Bob Hertzberg of Van Nuys says his interns initially proposed eliminating a law that he says "belongs in the history books, not the law books."Democratic Assemblywoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove of Los Angeles says it was also used to help apprehend runaway slaves.She calls it "a visage of a bygone era" now that California has plenty of professionals to catch criminals. 810

Rudy Giuliani's assertion to CNN this week that President Donald Trump can't be indicted by the special counsel, and thus can't face a subpoena, banks on a series of internal Justice Department policies.The question to this day is untested in the court system. Yet the step-by-step process Robert Mueller or any special counsel could follow for a President under investigation has several possible outcomes.According to several legal experts, historical memos and court filings, this is how the Justice Department's decision-making on whether to indict a sitting president could play out:First, there must be suspicion or allegations of a crime. Did the President do something criminally wrong? If the answer is no, there would be no investigation.But if the answer is maybe, that puts federal investigators on the pursuit. If they find nothing, Justice Department guidelines say they'd still need to address their investigation in a report summarizing their findings.If there could be some meat to the allegations, the Justice Department would need to determine one of two things: Did the potentially criminal actions take place unrelated to or before to the presidency? Or was the President's executive branch power was crucial in the crime?That determination will come into play later, because Congress' power to impeach and remove a president from office was intended by the framers of the Constitution to remedy abuse of the office, legal scholars say.Perhaps, though, the special counsel decides there's enough evidence to prove that the President broke the law.That's where the Office of Legal Counsel opinions come in.In 1973 and 2000, the office, which defines Justice Department internal procedure, said an indictment of a sitting president would be too disruptive to the country. This opinion appears to be binding on the Justice Department's decision-making, though it's possible for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to choose to override the opinion, give Mueller permission to ignore it and take it to court, or ask the office to reexamine the issue by writing a new opinion.This sort of legal briefing has been done before, like in the year after the 1973 opinion, when then-special prosecutor Leon Jaworski wrote a Watergate-era memo describing why the President should not be above the law.Of course, there's another immediate option if a special counsel finds the President did wrong. Prosecutors could use the "unindicted co-conspirator" approach. This would involve the special counsel's office indicting a group of conspirators, making clear the President was part of the conspiracy without bringing charges against him.At any time, in theory, a special counsel could decide to delay an indictment until the President leaves office -- so as not to interfere with the functioning of the executive branch. The other options would be to drop the case or send an impeachment referral to Congress. As evidenced by Mueller's actions previously in the investigations of Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, any steps this special counsel takes will likely come with the full support of the acting attorney general on the matter, Rosenstein.The question of whether a President could be subpoenaed is a story for another day. 3303

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Gov. Gavin Newsom has approved legislation prompted by the helicopter crash that killed Kobe Bryant and eight others.The bill signed Monday makes it a crime for first responders to take unauthorized photos of deceased people at the scene of an accident or crime.Reports surfaced after the January 26 crash that graphic photos of the victims were being shared. Eight deputies were accused of taking or sharing graphic photos of the scene, Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva said then, adding that he had ordered the images deleted.Sheriff Villanueva said the department has a policy against taking and sharing crime scene photos, but it does not apply to accident scenes.The measure that will take effect Jan. 1 makes it a misdemeanor with fines up to ,000 per offense to take such photos for anything other than an official law enforcement purpose.Bryant’s widow, Vanessa Bryant, has sued the department over the photos. In her lawsuit, Bryant alleges that eight deputies took "gratuitous images" with their cell phones after responding to the scene.Bryant's suit also alleges that one of those deputies showed images from the scene to someone outside the department. According to Yahoo, that deputy showed photos from the scene to a person at a bar and bragged "about how he had been at the crash site." A bartender who overheard the conversation later notified the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department about the conversation. 1474

来源：资阳报