濮阳东方医院妇科做人流非常好(濮阳东方妇科咨询) (今日更新中)

The Supreme Court appears deeply divided about whether it can address partisan gerrymandering and come up with a standard to decide when politicians go too far in using politics to draw congressional districts that benefit one party over another.Hearing a case on Wednesday challenging a district in Maryland, several of the justices suggested that the issue could be addressed by the courts, but grappled with how to devise a manageable standard to govern future legislative maps.How the court rules could dramatically impact future races, as Democrats try to win back the House amid widespread unhappiness at President Donald Trump. Recently a state court in Pennsylvania redrew congressional districts there, possibly serving to erase the Republicans' 12-6 district advantage.Wednesday's case was brought by a group of Republican voters in Maryland who say Democrats went too far in redrawing districts after the last census.At one point during their one hour of oral arguments, Justice Stephen Breyer wondered whether the court should take the two challenges it has already heard dealing with maps in Wisconsin and Maryland, and another case out of North Carolina and hold arguments again next fall.The suggestion could have interesting implications if Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been considering retirement and could be a key vote in the case, were to step down at the end of this term.On the issue of partisan gerrymandering, Breyer acknowledged that there seemed like "a pretty clear violation of the Constitution in some form" but he worried that the court needed a "practical remedy" so that judges would not have to get involved in "dozens and dozens and dozens of very important political decisions."Justice Elena Kagan pointed to the case at hand and said that Democrats had gone "too far" and took a "safe" Republican district and made it into a "pretty safe one" for Democrats. She referenced a deposition that then Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley gave where he said his intent was to create a map "that all things being legal and equal, would nonetheless be more likely to elect more Democrats rather than less."Kagan asked a lawyer for Maryland, "How much more evidence of partisan intent could we need?"Breyer seemed to urge his more conservative colleagues to step in, for the first time, and devise a framework for how to address gerrymandering.Pointing to the particular facts in the case he said, "We will never have such a record again.""What do we do, just say goodbye... forget it," Breyer asked.The challengers say former Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley led the charge to redraw the lines to unseat long-time GOP incumbent Rep. Roscoe Bartlett. They argue that Democrats diluted the votes of Republicans in the district by moving them to another district that had a safe margin for Democrats.In 2010, Bartlett won his district with by 28 percentage points, but he lost after the new maps were drawn in 2012 by 21 percentage points.But Justice Samuel Alito seemed to be on the other side of the spectrum and said, "Hasn't this Court said time and again you can't take all consideration of partisan advantage out of redistricting?"Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote could be critical, did not tip his hand but indicated that the current map, no matter what happens in the court, would have to be used in the next cycle.While the Supreme Court has a standard limiting the overreliance on race in map drawing except under the most limited circumstances, it has never been successful in developing a test concerning political gerrymandering. If the justices do come up with a standard, it could reshape the political landscape.In court, Michael Kimberly, a lawyer for the challengers, said that the Democratic politicians violated the free speech rights of voters by retaliating against them based on their party registration and prior voting history.He said that government officials may not "single out" a voter based on the votes he cast before.Maryland Solicitor General Steven Sullivan defended the map and suggested that the courts should stay out of an issue that is "inherently political." He argued that if the challengers prevail in their First Amendment challenge, it will mean that any partisan motive by political players would constitutionally doom all district maps.Justice Neil Gorsuch, appearing to agree with Sullivan, noted that the maps had been approved by the legislature.The challengers suffered a setback in the lower court when a special three-judge panel of federal judges refused to issue a preliminary injunction.Last year, the Supreme Court heard a similar political gerrymandering case in Wisconsin.That case was a statewide challenge brought by Democratic challengers to Republican-drawn state legislative maps. Challengers rely on both the First Amendment charge and say the maps violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.It is unclear why the Supreme Court added the Maryland case to the docket after hearing arguments in the Wisconsin case. 5026

The White House has issued a new warning to CNN's Jim Acosta, saying his press pass could be revoked again at the end of the month.In response, CNN is asking the U.S. District Court for another emergency hearing."The White House is continuing to violate the First and 5th Amendments of the Constitution," the network said in a statement Sunday. "These actions threaten all journalists and news organizations. Jim Acosta and CNN will continue to report the news about the White House and the President."Last Friday CNN won a temporary restraining order, forcing the White House to restore Acosta's press access to the White House for 14 days. Judge Timothy J. Kelly ruled on Fifth Amendment grounds, saying Acosta's right to due process had been violated. He did not rule on CNN's argument about First Amendment violations.Later that same day, the White House sent Acosta a formal letter outlining a "preliminary decision" to suspend his pass again once the restraining order expires. The letter cited his conduct at President Trump's November 7 press conference.The letter was signed by two of the defendants in the suit, press secretary Sarah Sanders and deputy chief of staff for communications Bill Shine.The letter signaled that the Trump administration wants to continue fighting Acosta, despite the round one setback in court, rather than seeking an out-of-court settlement.It looked like an effort to establish a paper trail that will empower the administration to boot Acosta again at the end of the month.In a court filing on Monday, CNN's lawyers said the network and Acosta "remain hopeful" that the parties "can resolve this dispute without further court intervention."But the new letter from Shine and Sanders is an "attempt to provide retroactive due process," the lawyers said.So CNN and Acosta are seeking a hearing on a preliminary injunction "for the week of November 26, 2018, or as soon thereafter as possible," according to Monday's filing.Such an injunction could be in effect for much longer, thereby protecting Acosta's access to the White House.Lawyers were already expected to be back in court this week to discuss the timeline for further proceedings. 2186

The Sinclair Broadcast Group acquisition of Tribune Media is dead.Tribune said in a statement Thursday that it has terminated its merger agreement with Sinclair, scuttling a .9 billion deal that would have given the broadcasting group an even broader reach into American living rooms.The breakup of the deal is a stinging defeat for Sinclair, owner of dozens of local television stations. Sinclair has been scrutinized for its ties to the Trump administration.Tribune had been expected to walk away after the deal came under scrutiny from US regulators. The FCC in July referred the merger to an administrative judge hearing, and called into question whether some of Sinclair's proposed divestments were a "sham."Tribune said it will sue Sinclair for breach of contract, arguing Sinclair's negotiations with the US Justice Department and FCC were "unnecessarily aggressive. Sinclair also refused to sell certain stations that would have helped the deal secure regulatory approval, Tribune claims."Our merger cannot be completed within an acceptable timeframe, if ever," said Tribune CEO Peter Kern in a statement.Analysts expect Tribune to seek another buyer.Sinclair did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent outside business hours. 1259

The Russian embassy in Washington asked its Twitter followers to vote for which US consulate they'd like to see shuttered Monday, after the Trump administration announced it would close down the Russian consulate in Seattle and expel 60 alleged spies throughout the country.In the poll, they offer the three US consulate locations in Russia as options: St. Petersburg, Vladivostok and Yekaterinburg.The US decided to shut down the Seattle consulate because of its proximity to a submarine base, senior administration officials said Monday, and expel the diplomats for "aggressive" intelligence collection. The move is part of an international effort to punish Russia's government for the alleged poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter in Great Britain. 772

The Susan B. Anthony Museum has something to say about President Trump’s recent decision to pardon the suffragette.“Objection! Mr. President, Susan B. Anthony must decline your offer of a pardon today,” the museum’s President and CEO Deborah Hughes posted online.President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he would sign a pardon for Susan B. Anthony on the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment.Anthony voted in a presidential election in 1872. She was arrested about a week later and eventually convicted of "knowingly, wrongfully, and unlawfully" voting without the right to do so. She was fined 0. 636

来源：资阳报