濮阳东方男科医院收费高吗(濮阳东方妇科治病专业) (今日更新中)

WASHINGTON (AP) — In President Donald Trump's former life as a casino owner, he might have cheered Monday's ruling from the Supreme Court that struck down a federal law that barred every state but Nevada from allowing betting on most sporting events.But the Trump administration opposed the outcome reached by the high court at least in part because it could signal trouble in its legal fight against so-called sanctuary states and cities. Seven of the nine justices — five conservatives and two liberals — backed a robust reading of the Constitution's 10th Amendment and a limit on the federal government's power to force the states go along with Washington's wishes.The federal anti-gambling law is unconstitutional because "it unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion. "It's as if federal officers were installed in state legislative chambers and were armed with the authority to stop legislators from voting on any offending proposals."RELATED: San Diego County Board of Supervisors votes to support sanctuary state lawsuit against CaliforniaThere is a direct link between the court's decision in the sports betting case and the administration's effort to punish local governments that resist Trump's immigration enforcement policies, several legal commentators said."The court ruled definitively that the federal government can't force states to enforce federal law. In the immigration context, this means it can't require state or local officials to cooperate with federal immigration authorities," said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's immigrants' rights project, said the ruling reinforced decisions from the 1990s, including one that struck down part of a federal gun control law that required local police to determine if buyers were fit to own handguns.RELATED: Escondido?City Council votes to support sanctuary policy lawsuit"It reiterates that the real thrust of the 10th Amendment and the principles of law in this area is that the fed government can't tell the states or cities how to legislate," Jadwat said. The amendment says that powers not specifically given to the federal government belong to the states.The gun law decision split the court's conservatives and liberals in 1997, in keeping with conservatives' complaints about the federal government's overreach and the importance of states' rights. But on Monday, Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined their more conservative colleagues.The Justice Department declined to comment on the decision, but it had called on the court to uphold the federal law at issue — the department's usual practice when federal laws are challenged — by arguing that there was no constitutional violation.RELATED: San Diego church becomes 'sanctuary congregation' amid immigration debateIn the most recent ruling about sanctuary cities, the federal appeals court in Chicago held last month that the federal government cannot withhold public safety grants from cities that won't go along with Trump's immigration enforcement policies.In lawsuits challenging the administration, cities argue that turning local police authorities into immigration officers erodes trust with minority communities and discourages residents from reporting crime. The administration says sanctuary jurisdictions allow dangerous criminals back on the street.The administration's efforts to crack down on places that don't comply with immigration authorities have taken several forms. Trump issued an executive order aimed at withholding federal money from recalcitrant jurisdictions. The administration also has sued California over three laws aimed at protecting immigrants in the country illegally. 3834

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has raised roughly 0 million since his Election Day defeat, a sum garnered through a nonstop stream of solicitations that have falsely claimed the election was stolen while requesting contributions for an “election defense fund.” A person familiar with Trump’s effort who requested anonymity says most of the money was raised in the days after the Nov. 3 contest. The amount, which approaches the sums Trump took in at the height of the campaign, offers yet another sign that he does not intend to leave the White House quietly and will remain a powerful force in Republican politics.As Trump’s chances of reelection dwindled in the hours and days after the election, his campaign began bombarding supporters with hundreds of emails and text messages that made inaccurate claims about voter fraud and election irregularities, while requesting money to fight the outcome.They haven’t let up since.“My father was 100% right when he said mail-in ballots would cause problems. YOU deserve a FAIR and TRANSPARENT Election,” Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. said Tuesday in one such email.But the fine print indicates much of the money has instead paid down campaign debt, replenished the Republican National Committee and, more recently, helped get Save America, a new political action committee Trump founded, off the ground.Seventy-five percent of each contribution made now goes to Save America, with the remaining 25% going to the RNC’s operating account. It’s only once donors have given the legal maximum to Trump’s political committee and the RNC that money begins spilling over into accounts specifically intended to pay for legal proceedings related to the election. 1718

WASHINGTON — The number of Americans seeking unemployment benefits declined last week to a still-high 837,000, evidence that the economy is struggling to sustain a tentative recovery that began this summer. The Labor Department’s report, released Thursday, suggests that companies are still cutting a historically high number of jobs, though the weekly numbers have become less reliable as states have increased their efforts to root out fraudulent claims and process earlier applications that have piled up. For example, California, which accounts for more than one-quarter of aid applications, simply provided the same figure it submitted the previous week. The state had said it would stop accepting jobless claims online so it could tackle a backlog of 600,000 claims. 780

VISTA (KNSD) - A Carlsbad man who allegedly drugged and sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl and raped a woman he met online was charged Wednesday with 17 felony counts.Michael Fangman, 47, faces between 20 and 25 years in state prison if convicted of charges involving the minor, identified only as Jane Doe 1, and the woman, identified only as Jane Doe 2.Fangman was arrested shortly before 8:25 a.m. last Friday at his home, Carlsbad police Sgt. Reid Shipley said.Carlsbad police have been investigating since March when they received the first report of sexual assault. The 16-year-old girl contacted police on March 18 and alleged that she had been sexually assaulted by Fangman, who she had met online, Shipley said.The criminal complaint includes allegations that between March 11 and March 16, Jane Doe 1 was sexually assaulted and was given heroin by Fangman during that timeframe. He faces 14 counts related to Jane Doe 1, as well as three pertaining to Jane Doe 2, including forcible rape.According to the deputy district attorney, Benjamin Barlow, all of the alleged acts took place in Carlsbad in the month of March of this year. The judge ordered a no contact order with Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. Fangman is being held without bail and is due back in court June 20 for a readiness conference.Investigators have uncovered two additional victims and believe there may be more, they're asking anyone who has information to contact the Carlsbad Police Department's tip line at 760-931-3819 or TipLine@CarlsbadCA.gov. 1536

WASHINGTON (AP) — Acting in lawsuits involving absentee ballot deadlines in three battleground states, the Supreme Court has allowed extensions for ballots in North Carolina and Pennsylvania to remain in place.But it has refused a plea for a relaxed deadline in Wisconsin.In each case, Democrats backed the extensions, and Republicans opposed them.All three states have Democratic governors and legislatures controlled by the GOP.Last week, the Supreme Court tied 4-4 by upholding the ruling from Pennsylvania's Supreme Court that would allow election officials to receive and count ballots until Nov. 6, even if they don't have a clear postmark.On Wednesday, the justices denied the motion to expedite a review of the state's Republican Party's appeal to exclude mail-in absentee ballots after the elections were over."There is simply not enough time at this late date to decide the question before the election," Justice Samuel Alito said in a statement alongside Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. "That does not mean, however, that the state court decision must escape our review."Alito added that state officials informed county election boards to segregate ballots received between 8 p.m. on Election Day and 5 p.m. on Nov. 6.At first blush, the different outcomes at the Supreme Court seem odd because the high court typically takes up issues to harmonize the rules across the country.On Wednesday, the justices said absentee ballots in North Carolina could be received and counted up to nine days after Election Day.On Monday, the justices stated that ballots in Wisconsin must be received by Election Day in order to be counted, the Associated Press reported.But elections are largely governed by states, and the rules differ from one state to the next.Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in consideration of either motion, the justices said. 1877

来源：资阳报