揭阳最有效治疗白癜风方法梅州免费在线白癜风咨询,白癜风普宁医疗给报销吗,潮州白癜风哪里比较专业,普宁哪家治白癜风效果最好,梅州治疗白癜风民间偏方,汕尾哪家白癜风治疗较好,梅州白癜风白斑治疗援助补贴

The Sanderson Sisters from "Hocus Pocus" are back and ready to put a spell on you this Halloween.Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Kathy Najimy are reuniting as The Sanderson Sisters from the cult classic "Hocus Pocus." The sisters will be treating us to a virtual event on Oct. 30. And it's all for a good cause.According to the New York Restoration Project (NYRP) website, tickets for the "In Search of the Sanderson Sisters: A Hocus Pocus Hulaween Takeover" are .All the money raised will benefit the nonprofit NYRP, which Midler started in 1995. They restore parks and plant trees in New York City.Midler tweeted a picture of all three actresses together as Winifred, Mary, and Sarah Sanderson. 715

The US Office of Special Counsel announced Tuesday that White House aide Kellyanne Conway violated the Hatch Act on two occasions by "advocating for and against candidates" in last year's Alabama Senate special election.In a new report, the OSC special counsel, Henry Kerner, pointed to Conway's TV interviews conducted in her "official capacity" in November and December of last year. The agency said Conway "impermissibly mixed official government business with political views about candidates in the Alabama special election."One of the two interviews was on CNN's "New Day," and the second was on Fox News' "Fox & Friends."In a letter to President Donald Trump, Kerner said he is referring her violations for the President's "consideration of appropriate disciplinary action."The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.During the "Fox & Friends" interview November 20, Conway was introduced by the show's hosts as a "counselor to President Trump" and spoke from White House grounds. She said about Democratic Senate candidate Doug Jones: "Folks, don't be fooled. He'll be a vote against tax cuts. He's weak on crime, weak on borders. He's strong on raising your taxes. He's terrible for property owners."During the "New Day" interview December 6, Conway -- again speaking from White House grounds and introduced by CNN anchor Chris Cuomo as "counselor to President Trump" -- said among other things that Jones will be a reliable vote "for tax hikes," "against border security," "against national security," "against the Second Amendment" and "against life," according to the OSC report.Conway went on to tell Cuomo that Jones is "out of step for Alabama voters, according to the President," and that Trump "doesn't want a liberal Democrat representing Alabama in the United States Senate."The Office of Special Counsel is unrelated to the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller.  1940

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 U.S. population grew by the smallest rate in at least 120 years from 2019 to 2020.Figures released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau show the U.S. population grew by 0.35% from July 2019 to July 2020, an increase of 1.1 million people in a nation with an estimated population of more than 329 million residents.Demographer William Frey says population growth in the U.S. already had been stagnant over the past several years due to immigration restrictions and a dip in fertility.However, the pandemic exacerbated that lethargic-growth trend.Even during the height of the Spanish flu, the growth rate was higher — 0.49%. 632

The Supreme Court is allowing Florida to enforce a law that bars ex-felons from voting who still owe court fees or fines.Thursday’s decision by the Supreme Court denied the request in front of them to lift the order of lower court rulings. Their decision allows the Florida law to move forward without declaring the law to be unconstitutional or limit ongoing court challenges.Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan dissented."This Court's order prevents thousands of otherwise eligible voters from participating in Florida's primary election simply because they are poor," Sotomayor wrote in the dissent."This Court's inaction continues a trend of condoning (disenfranchisement)," she added.The law is expected to impact roughly 1.4 million people in Florida. Amendment 4, passed by Florida voters in 2018, allowed most ex-felons to register to vote, with exceptions for those convicted of certain crimes. In 2019, Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law additions to Amendment 4 that required fines, fees and restitution be paid first before ex-felons could register to vote. Thursday's decision from the Supreme Court comes just days before the voter registration deadline in Florida. The state's primary election is scheduled for August 18 and voters must register by July 20. 1320