濮阳东方男科口碑(濮阳东方医院看男科病价格透明) (今日更新中)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing a class-action lawsuit to proceed from minor league baseball players who allege they are being paid less than minimum wage.The justices offered no comment Monday in rejecting Major League Baseball's appeal.The case of Senne v. Royals was first filed in 2014 on behalf of former minor league player Aaron Senne, ESPN reported and has now expanded to include minor league players in Arizona, California, and Florida.In the lawsuit, the players claim most earned less than ,500 annually in violation of several laws.According to USA Today, if minor leaguers had played ball this season, they would have earned between 0-0 per week played.Minor League Baseball canceled its season due to the coronavirus pandemic.A judge had initially allowed only the California players to sue, but the federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled in favor of the players from Arizona and Florida. 941

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to maintain its restrictive policy on refugees.The justices on Tuesday agreed to an administration request to block a lower court ruling that would have eased the refugee ban and allowed up to 24,000 refugees to enter the country before the end of October.RELATED:  352

WASHINGTON (AP) — The GOP push against Facebook and Twitter has accelerated after Republican senators threatened the CEOs of the social media companies with subpoenas to force them to address accusations of censorship in the closing weeks of the presidential campaign. With Democrats boycotting the hearing, the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee voted to authorize the legal orders if Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter’s Jack Dorsey don't agree to testify voluntarily. The committee wants to hear from the executives about what the subpoena document says is “the suppression and/or censorship" of recent New York Post articles about Democratic president nominee Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Facebook declined comment and there's no immediate comment from Twitter. 792

WASHINTON — The Supreme Court has dismissed as premature a challenge to President Donald Trump’s plan to exclude people living in the country illegally from the population count used to allot states seats in the House of Representatives. The court’s decision Friday may not be its last word on the matter and it’s not clear whether Trump will receive numbers from the Census Bureau before he leaves office next month. The high court said it was too soon to rule on the legality of Trump’s plan because it’s not yet clear how many people he would seek to exclude and whether the division of House seats would be affected.This story is breaking and will be updated. 671

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Two conservative Supreme Court justices are taking aim at the landmark case that legalized same-sex marriage across the U.S. in 2015.Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito released a four-page opinion Monday about the religious liberty implications from the Obergefell v. Hodges decision.Thomas and Alito argue that the decision threatens the religious liberty of Americans who believe that marriage is a “sacred institution” between a man and woman.“Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws,” wrote the justices.Thomas and Alito were among the four justices who voted against legalizing same-sex marriage five years ago, arguing that it should have been left to the states to the decide.“If the states had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs,” they wrote.Monday’s opinion came as the court declined to hear the case involving Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who made headlines in 2015 as she declined marriage licenses to gay couples, despite the Supreme Court ruling. Thomas wrote that he agreed with not taking up the case, because it didn’t “cleanly present” important questions raised about Obergefell v. Hodges.In their opinion, Thomas and Alito say Davis may have been “one of the first victims” of the court’s “cavalier treatment of religion” in the Obergefell decision, but she won’t be the last.They claim, “Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.”Thomas and Alito ended the opinion saying the court’s decision in the Obergefell case has “created a problem that only it can fix,” suggesting there’s a possibility the justices could move to overturn the 2015 decision.This comes weeks after the death of liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. President Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans are working hard to appoint Judge Amy Coney Barrett to that seat, which would give conservatives a 6-3 majority. 2300

来源：资阳报