濮阳东方妇科医院坐公交路线(濮阳东方医院妇科做人流手术很好) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom nominated the first openly gay Black man to the state Supreme Court.Newsom nominated Martin Jenkins to the court on Monday. The 66-year-old would be the third Black person to serve on the court if he is confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments.Jenkins would replace Justice Ming W. Chin, who retired at the end of August.Jenkins is a former federal civil rights attorney who prosecuted cross burnings and police misconduct cases under President Ronald Reagan.He was appointed by Republicans and Democrats to four different judgeships. 609

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a law that would give judges a say on whether to list someone as a sex offender for having oral or anal sex with a minor.The bill — touted as bringing legal equality to LGBTQ defendants — was signed Friday. Currently, judges can decide whether to put someone on the sex offender registry only if the case involved a man having voluntary vaginal intercourse. RELATED: Mayor Kevin Faulconer condemns Newsom’s amended sex offender lawThe measure expands that discretion to cases involving oral or anal sex. 577

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) — The California Assembly voted Thursday to cap the interest lenders may charge on loans that can carry rates spiraling into the triple digits.Backed by civil rights groups, religious organizations and some trade associations, the proposed law would cap annual rates at around 38% for loans between ,500 and ,000.The bill comes as legislators across the country seek to reign in a storefront lending industry critics accuse of preying on low-income consumers in need of cash and trapping them under mounds of debt for years.But even as the bill advanced, some California lawmakers expressed concern that it will limit choices for consumers with bad credit or little access to banks and other financial products. And the lending industry, which wields significant influence in legislatures as well as in Washington, has launched an advertising campaign in California attacking the bill as it heads to the state Senate, where observers expect a tougher fight.Proponents of capping interest rates point to an explosion in high-interest consumer loans around the state over the last decade.The state already caps interest rates on consumer loans under ,500 but not for amounts over that threshold. In 2009, 8,468 loans for amounts between ,500 and ,000 came with interest rates over 100%, according to data from state regulators. Lenders now issue more than 350,000 loans each year with interest rates in the triple digits. A legislative analysis said at least one out of three borrowers is unable to pay their loans.But proposals to cap interest rates in recent years have faltered at California's Legislature. Several lawmakers still expressed concern about the latest proposal, suggesting it could drive lenders out of the market, pushing consumers with low incomes toward unregulated lenders or cutting off their easy access to capital."Without these alternative financial service providers, those folks would have nowhere else to go," said Democratic Assemblywoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove of Los Angeles.Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon dismissed arguments the bill would ultimately harm low-income residents."Those are merely talking points of an industry that has repeatedly lied to members of this chamber," he said.Casting the bill as a moral issue, the Democrat said the legislation can be considered as important as any other lawmakers will vote on this year in the country's most populous state.The bill ended up passing with bipartisan support as one Republican legislator cited religious prohibitions on usury."I'm a free-market capitalist and I'm unashamed of it but we need to stand up and protect people who are being preyed upon," said Assemblyman Jordan Cunningham of San Luis Obispo.The support of the financial industry this year, too, may also signal that the sector foresees a reckoning in the state or at least further political uncertainty if lawmakers do not approve limits for loans between ,500 and ,000.The California Supreme Court cast a legal question mark last year over the lending industry's practices, deciding in one class action lawsuit that some interest rates can be so high as to be deemed unconscionable under financial laws.Democratic Assemblywoman Monique Limon of Santa Barbara, the bill's author, also suggested that an interest rate cap could end up on the ballot if the Legislature does not act.If passed, California would join 38 states and the District of Columbia in capping interest rates for these types of loans, according to a legislative analysis. The level proposed in California would be on the higher end.Observers expect a bigger political fight when the bill heads to the state Senate, however.Opponents of the bill have launched an advertising campaign aimed at stopping it.The trade group Online Lenders Alliance has bought ads on Sacramento television stations, according to Federal Communication Commission filings.A group calling itself Don't Lock Me Out California has also bought online ads attacking the bill. 4018

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's Department of Motor Vehicles improperly disclosed private information to seven other government agencies on more than 3,000 people involved in some type of investigation as suspects or witnesses, officials said Tuesday.The department was sending letters Tuesday to the 3,200 people after determining that they are not currently being investigated.The department improperly gave federal, state and county agencies what were supposed to be internal notes, such as whether drivers' Social Security numbers had been checked to see if they were valid or falsified or if the individual was ineligible for a Social Security number.It sent information on more than 3,000 of the individuals to district attorneys in just two of California's 58 counties, San Diego and Santa Clara.Information on fewer than 200 people went to the federal Department of Homeland Security, including six records for immigrants who were in the country illegally but applied for or received special immigrant licenses.Officials said it was unclear if they were used to investigate the drivers' immigration status or for some other purpose.The remainder went to the Internal Revenue Service, inspector generals for the Social Security Administration and U.S. Small Business Administration, and the California Department of Health Care Services.The information could have been used in criminal, tax or child support investigations, including for witnesses in those inquiries, officials said.It's the latest in series of missteps by the DMV, which last year came under fire for long wait times and for potentially botching about 23,000 voter registrations under the state's "motor voter" law, which lets residents automatically register to vote through the DMV.Department spokeswoman Anita Gore said the DMV stopped making the improper disclosures in August after officials decided that they shouldn't have been giving other agencies the internal notes.She said it took the DMV three months to send the letters because it had to ask each of the seven agencies why they wanted the information, review four available years of records, make sure the 3,200 drivers were not being investigated to avoid tipping them off, and then draft individual letters to each driver. 2278

来源：资阳报