武清区龙济医院泌尿科医院在武清哪里天津武清龙济医有男科吗,武清龙济医院怎样,天津武清区龙济几点开门,天津市龙济和平好吗,重度阳痿天津龙济医院能治吗,武清男科医院认准龙济,武清区龙济男子收费

A lawsuit against Harvard brought on behalf of Asian-American students who failed to gain admission goes to trial on Monday in one of the most consequential race cases in decades, with affirmative action policies across the country at stake.The lawsuit was crafted by conservative advocates who have long fought racial admissions practices that traditionally benefited African-American and Latino students. Their ultimate goal is to reverse the 1978 Supreme Court case that upheld admissions policies that consider the race of students for campus diversity.Parties on both sides expect the Supreme Court to eventually resolve the issue. And with President Donald Trump's two appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the high court now has five conservative justices who may be inclined to reverse the landmark ruling.The challengers are led by Edward Blum, a conservative activist who has devised a series of claims against racial policies, including an earlier affirmative action lawsuit on behalf of Abigail Fisher against the University of Texas and several challenges to the 1965 Voting Rights Act.Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key vote in 2016 when the court last endorsed race-based admissions in the University of Texas case, was replaced by Kavanaugh earlier this month. Gorsuch succeeded the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who had opposed all affirmative action and criticized the University of Texas program, but died before that case was completed.The Students for Fair Admissions group Blum founded when he filed the Harvard case in November 2014 contends the university engages in unlawful "racial balancing" as it boosts the chances of admissions for blacks and Hispanics and lowers the chances for Asian Americans.Harvard's practices, the group says, are "the same kind of discrimination and stereotyping that it used to justify quotas on Jewish applicants in the 1920s and 1930s."That assertion has deeply resonated with some Asian Americans who fear they are held to a higher standard than other applicants to prestigious universities. Yet Asian-American advocates, representing a wide swath of backgrounds and educational experiences, have come in on both sides of the case.Some who back the lawsuit seek to end all consideration of race in admissions, while others, siding with Harvard, argue that universities should be able to consider race for campus diversity and that some Asian Americans, particularly those with ties to Southeast Asian countries, may have had fewer educational opportunities before applying to college.The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a brief on behalf of 25 Harvard student and alumni organizations comprising blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and whites. The Legal Defense Fund calls the lawsuit an effort "to sow racial division" and emphasizes the Supreme Court's repeated endorsement of the 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.Those subsequent rulings, however, turned on a single vote, either that of Kennedy or Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who retired in 2006.The Trump administration, which is separately scrutinizing of race-based admissions practices at Harvard through its Education and Justice departments based on a complaint from more than 60 Asian American groups, has backed Students for Fair Admissions.Harvard, the country's oldest institution of higher education, denies that it engages in racial balancing or limits Asian-American admissions. It defends its longstanding effort for racial diversity as part of the education mission and says admissions officers undertake a "whole-person evaluation" that includes academics, extracurricular activities, talents and personal qualities, as well as socioeconomic background and race.Since the case was first filed, both sides have mined similar statistical evidence and testimony but with sharply contrasting conclusions -- all of which will now be presented before US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs."Each party relies on its own expert reports to show the presence or absence of a negative effect of being Asian American on the likelihood of admission ... and claims that there is substantial -- or zero -- documentary and testimonial evidence of discriminatory intent," Burroughs said in an order last month rejecting requests from both sides to rule for each, respectively, before trial.The case was brought under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, prohibiting racial discrimination at private institutions that receive federal funds.Burroughs, a 2014 appointee of President Barack Obama, has said she expects the trial to last about three weeks. Both sides will offer opening statements on Monday. 4719

A long line of people stretched down the street and around a corner in Amsterdam, New York, Friday evening as mourners waited to to enter St. Stanislaus Roman Catholic Church.They wanted to honor the lives of eight people -- four of them sisters -- who died in last weekend's devastating limousine crash."Nobody cared how cold it was," said Christopher Carpenter, a resident who attended the gathering and knew one of the victims, Abigail Jackson. "The wind was blowing. It was overcast, and everybody still stayed in that line to go through the church."As they entered, attendees extended their condolences to the families of Abigail and Adam Jackson, Mary and Robert Dyson, Amy and Axel Steenburg, Allison King and Richard Steenburg. And the families greeted each person who came, Carpenter said."It was almost like the family was taking care of us," he said, "and we were taking care of them." 904

A historic bill to legalize marijuana at the federal level is expected to come up for a vote in the House of Representatives in December.This would be the first time a chamber of Congress has ever voted on removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act.Cannabis was included as what is called a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act in 1970. Schedule I drugs are defined as having a high potential for abuse and no medical benefit. Other Schedule I drugs include heroin, LSD, ecstasy and peyote.“I write to share the busy Floor schedule we have for the remainder of the year,” starts a letter from Representative Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader. “In December … the House will vote on the MORE Act to decriminalize cannabis and expunge convictions for non-violent cannabis offenses that have prevented many Americans from getting jobs, applying for credit and loans, and accessing opportunities that make it possible to get ahead in our economy.”The MORE Act - Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act - includes language that would expunge some cannabis records and create grant opportunities for people who have been negatively impacted by the criminalization of marijuana in addition to removing it from its Schedule I classification.The act is sponsored by now-Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, and co-sponsored by seven other representatives including New Jersey Congressman Cory Booker and Massachusetts Congresswoman Elizabeth Warren.Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is opposed to the act, and some say the odds of it passing the senate, even if it passes the House, are very slim.Marijuana is already legal in more than a dozen states, despite the federal designation as a Schedule I drug.Studies show more people support the legalization of marijuana. A 2019 Gallup poll showed majority-support across major political parties for legalizing marijuana. It showed 51% of Republicans, 68% of independents, and 76% of Democrats are in favor of it.During the November election, medical and recreational marijuana use was on the ballot in a handful of states. Four states, Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota, voted to make recreational marijuana use legal in their states. And Mississippi voters approved marijuana for medical use.Even if the MORE Act passes both chambers of Congress, it would not make sales of marijuana legal. Regulation of marijuana would be left to states to decide how to handle it. 2473

A man died after falling into a vat of oil at a plant Disney World uses to recycle food waste, according to the Washington Post.The incident happened shortly after midnight Tuesday at a facility near Disney World.According to the Post, two men were emptying oil and grease into the vat when a worker, later identified as 61-year-old John Korody slipped and fell into the vat.Korody’s co-worker tried to pull him out, but the fumes from the oil and grease overwhelmed both of the men.A spokesperson for Walt Disney World confirmed Korody wasn’t an employee of the resort, but of Harvest Power, the company that converts the food waste into renewable energy. 664

A Brooklyn woman whose racist, profanity-laced tirade on the New York subway was captured on video this week has been charged with felony assault after she struck a fellow passenger, authorities said.The dispute between Anna Lushchinskaya, a 40-year-old white woman, and the 24-year-old passenger, a woman of Asian descent, began after Lushchinskaya bumped into the woman early Tuesday, the New York Police Department told CNN.Lushchinskaya yelled profanities at the victim on the northbound D train, hitting her with an umbrella and keys, the NYPD said. On video captured by witnesses, Lushchinskaya can be heard calling the woman a racial slur.Lushchinskaya was apprehended at the 36th Street Station and arrested, the NYPD said.CNN could not reach Lushchinskaya or her attorneys for comment Friday.Lushchinskaya was arraigned in Kings County Criminal Court following the incident, according to Brooklyn District Attorney spokesperson Oren Yaniv. She pleaded not guilty and posted ,000 cash bond, according to court records.She is due back in court January 22.The victim suffered cuts to her face, the NYPD said. She told CNN affiliate WABC, which said she wanted to remain anonymous, that she was grateful people intervened.A 30-year old good Samaritan suffered scratches when he intervened, the NYPD said.Several subway riders captured the tirade on video. The incident has since been viewed by millions of people on social media.The video shows the woman yelling profanities at the victim and calling another rider "retarded.""F*** off," Lushchinskaya allegedly said several times before striking the victim with her hand.She then took off her sunglasses and gloves, pulled her hair back and took her umbrella and keys from her bag, according to the video. Then, she began kicking the woman, who defended herself.Passengers intervened, trying to restrain Lushchinskaya, and told her to stop. One person threatened to call the police.The video shows Lushchinskaya striking the woman several times with her umbrella and her keys and again kicking her."She's not even fighting you back," one person is heard saying.At least two subway riders tried to wrestle the umbrella away.Lushchinskaya is seen spitting in the direction of the victim before yelling more profanity and a racial slur.Juan Ayala, who was filming the incident, said he decided to intervene, but Lushchinskaya lashed out at him. A video posted by another user shows Ayala talking to Lushchinskaya."Do not spit at me," Ayala says in the video, to which Lushchinskaya replies, "What are you, her attorney? F***ing Mohammed."The subway car erupts in a gasp and Ayala gives his reply: "What? B****, I'm Dominican!"Fellow subway riders protested. "Your white privilege ain't working over here," one man is heard saying.The victim told WABC she felt lucky the woman didn't have a weapon like a gun or a knife "because it could have got a lot worse.""I'm lucky that people were on the train who were helping me, especially the first Asian guy who stood in front of me right away because he wasn't recording. He just stood in front of me to help me, because I know other people were recording, but their recording didn't do anything until later on when it escalated," she said.This is Lushchinskaya's second arrest this year for a subway altercation -- both took place at the 36th Street Station in Brooklyn. In June, she was arrested for allegedly pepper spraying a man and woman, according to DCPI detective Sophia Mason. Both were Hispanic. She was charged with harassment, menacing with a weapon and attempted assault. 3593