濮阳东方医院男科治阳痿比较好(濮阳东方医院妇科评价非常高) (今日更新中)

Judge Amy Coney Barrett remained tight-lipped on how she would rule in politically-charged Supreme Court cases in early questioning during her confirmation hearings on Tuesday morning, citing judicial precedence.Barrett is President Donald Trump's third Supreme Court nominee, and Trump has said that he would only nominate judges that would roll back abortion rights and end the public health care system set up by the Affordable Care Act. And while her judicial history indicates that Barrett fits those qualifications, she continually avoided answering specific qualifications about looming Supreme Court cases.Barrett was asked her views on several politically-charged topics which the Supreme Court could potentially influence, including:2020 ElectionWhen asked by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT, if she would recuse herself should the upcoming election spark a Supreme Court decision, Barrett clarified that she had not made a "commitment to anyone...on how she would decide a case."Barrett later said she would consider the legal requirements of recusal from the eight other Supreme Court judges should the election spark a case.Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-MN, asked Barrett specifically about President Donald Trump's call to have "poll watchers" observe voters ahead of election day and check for fraud — an action that legal experts worry could suppress turnout.When asked if it would be illegal for those "poll watchers" to "intimidate" voters, Barrett said she would not comment on hypothetical cases.AbortionWhen asked repeatedly by Feinstein if she agrees with Justice Antonin Scalia if Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and that it "can and should be overruled," Barrett attempted to sidestep the answer."If I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say 'I love it or I hate it,' it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a given case," she said.She later clarified that she does not have an "agenda." She added that her agenda is to "stick to the rule of law."The Affordable Care ActCommittee Chairman Lindsey Graham asked Barrett directly if she would recuse herself from any Affordable Care Act cases, given Trump's call to dismantle the law and her past writings critical on Supreme Court decisions upholding the law. Barrett said she would follow typical recusal procedures should she be asked by the other justices.Later, Feinstein asked Barrett if she had any "thoughts" on an upcoming ACA case, California v. Texas. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on that case on Nov. 10.Barrett said she would not share any thoughts on the case.Finally, Barrett told Sen. Chuck Grassley that she had not been directed by any politicians to strike down the law.Gun controlBarrett was asked directly by Feinstein how she would rule in the event a case regarding gun control came before the court. She said she would "look carefully at text, look...applying law as I best determine it."LGBTQ+ rightsFeinstein also asked Barrett how she would rule in cases regarding LGBTQ+ rights. During the questioning, Barrett said she found both "racism" and "discrimination on sexual preference" to be "abhorrent."According to GLAAD, the term "sexual preference" implies that a person's sexuality is a "choice," meaning it can be cured. The organization prefers the term "sexual orientation."Voting rightsSen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, spent a large amount of his time comparing recent Supreme Court decisions on voting rights to decisions on the Second Amendment, noting that some felons in America retain the right to a firearm but lose their right to vote.Durbin related that anecdote to rulings Barrett has made regarding a felon's right to firearms. Barrett accused Durbin of taking her ruling out of context. She later added that she does not have an "agenda" when it comes to certain cases, though Durbin argued that all judges are shaped by their own values and experiences._____________Questioning took place in a marathon-length session on Tuesday, with all 22 members on Senate Judiciary Committee being granted the opportunity to question Barrett for 30 minutes at a time. Members will get an additional 20 minutes of questioning on Wednesday.On Monday, lawmakers were each granted 10 minutes to deliver an opening statement, all of which fell along party lines.Democrats said Barrett's nomination would threaten healthcare for millions of Americans, citing past criticisms of previous Supreme Court rulings that upheld the Affordable Care Act that Barrett has published. They also argued that Republicans were "rushing" Barrett's nomination ahead of election day to, as Sen. Kamala Harris put it, "bypass the will of the American people."Many Democrats took issue with hearings even being held amid a pandemic, claiming Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham had taken lax measures to not require lawmakers to be tested and lambasting Republicans for putting Capitol Building staff at risk. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-NC, who was recently isolated due to the coronavirus, submitted a letter to Graham from his doctor claiming he was following CDC guidelines. They also argued that their time would be better spent working on stimulus legislation.Most Republicans used the time to champion Barrett's character as a working mother of nine children and argue that it was their Constitutional duty to fill the open seat because they control both the Senate and the White House.Following the committee members' opening statements, Barrett delivered her own statement, in which she paid homage to her mentors and Conservative icon, Justice Antonin Scalia, and to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, saying she was "forever grateful for the path she marked and the life she led."Graham has said he hopes to have confirmation hearings completely wrapped up by Thursday. He added that Republicans are on track to wrap up the process by the end of the month —just a week before election day. 5909

Kenny Bachman made a responsible decision. After a night of drinking in Morgantown, West Virginia, Bachman opted to use an Uber.Little did Bachman know that rather than returning to his friends' place in Morgantown, Bachman was on a 300-mile journey back to his New Jersey home, according to NJ.com.According to the NJ.com report, Bachman passed out in the passenger seat of a 2011 Honda Odyssey, hours into his costly journey home. When he awakened, instead of just getting out and be stranded in the middle of no where, he decided to keep going."I just woke up," Bachman told NJ.com. "And I'm thinking, 'Why the f--- am I in the car next to some random a** dude I don't even know?"Besides the accidental 300-mile trip, Bachman had to pay extra because he had mistakenly requested an UberXL, and it was surge pricing. Had it not been surge pricing, Bachman would have paid just 9.14, NJ.com reported. Bachman told NJ.com that his driver did not have money to pay for the unexpected tollbooths, so Bachman stopped at a CVS ATM to give the driver cash to use for tolls on the return trip.Although Bachman gave the driver 5 Stars, he protested the charge to Uber, claiming he never put his home address in New Jersey into the app. Uber told NJ.com that the dispute has been resolved, and that Bachman agreed to pay the fare.  1419

Joint statement by @NYSenatorFelder, @ChaimDeutsch, @KalmanYeger, and myself regarding @NYGovCuomo’s irresponsible rhetoric and constitutionally questionable shutdown of our communities. pic.twitter.com/LyMSBsAGJM— Simcha Eichenstein (@SEichenstein) October 7, 2020 273

JAMUL, Calif. (KGTV) — A Jamul woman who lost her home to the Valley Fire says her horses were likely saved thanks to fire retardant sprayed on her property. Shelley Brown still can't believe how fast the flames were moving. By 3 p.m. Saturday, the fast-moving flames were bearing down on her home on Lawson Hills Road."Ashes falling down around me. I could hear the fire burning. It was scary," said Brown.She only had time to try and round up her five dogs. One of them ran off. She also owned horses, including three she had just rescued, but she had no trailer. Faced with an impossible decision, she opened up the corral gate and released them."It was the worst. It was the worst. You don’t know if you’re doing the right thing," said Brown, choking back tears.As she drove off, she says the flames were within a few hundred feet of her home. She drove up a hill. She couldn't stop thinking of her horses."Went to the top and cried for a little while," said Brown.The next morning, Brown got back to the area and discovered her two mustangs in a neighbor's yard."So relieved. The search and rescue team helped me get them," said Brown.Not far away, she found the remnants of her home. Her two-story home of 10 years had been destroyed, along with all her belongings."I felt strange and little bit eerie," said Brown.And then, she felt joyful. About 20 feet from the burned home, standing in her yard, were the three rescue horses."I was shocked, so happy. Didn’t know what to expect. They weren’t singed," said Brown.A closer look around the property one possible reason they survived: a sign of a firefight."They were putting retardant around the edge of the property. I can still see it, and they kind of surrounded where my horses were. I’m guessing that’s what saved them," said Brown.A week after the flames swept the area, Brown is beginning to go through the rubble. She is thankful to fire crews."They are amazing. They saved my animals, and I'm so grateful," said Brown.This week, Brown decided to buy dozens of breakfast sandwiches for firefighters."It's the least I can do," said Brown.Brown, who recently inherited the home, is not yet sure if the insurance covers wildfires.A GoFundMe campaign has been started to help her rebuild. 2257

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — For the first time publicly, the woman who claimed Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens took a nude photo of her without her permission during an affair is telling her side of the story.The woman, who wanted to remain anonymous, spoke exclusively with KSDK-TV in St. Louis.“I’m in the middle of the most difficult, crazy fight that I didn’t ask to be a part of,” she said in the interview. “And I feel like I’m this easy punching bag, yet I haven’t thrown any punches.”This scandal became public on the night Greitens delivered the annual State of the State address in Jefferson City. That night, KMOV-TV first reported the affair and the allegations against the governor. He was accused of taking a compromising and unauthorized photo of a woman during the 2015 affair, but the felony charge stemming from the accusation has been dropped.While Greitens admitted to the affair, he denies any criminal wrongdoing.During the interview, the woman, who is referred to as K.S. in court documents, said no one had paid her and no one with any political motivations talked to her about coming forward.The story only became public when the woman’s ex-husband came forward with a secret recording as part of the KMOV-TV report.“I didn’t want this. I wasn’t out to get anyone. I really was just trying to live my life,” the woman told KSDK-TV.In February, the St. Louis Circuit Attorney charged the Governor with invasion of privacy. Once that happened, the woman said she felt she should cooperate.The charge was dismissed May 14 in preliminary stages of the trial after the court said it would allow Greitens' lawyers to question the prosecutor under oath, who said it would have been improper for her to be a witness in a trial her office was prosecuting.On Monday, a judge appointed a special prosecutor. Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker will decide whether to refile the charge.  1943

来源：资阳报