天津武清区龙济包皮手术要不要剃毛(天津龙济包皮包茎治疗) (今日更新中)

The Trump administration's executive order threatening to withhold funding from sanctuary cities is unconstitutional, a US appeals court said Wednesday.This story is developing. 190

The United States Supreme Court is expected to rule on several major cases next week impacting everything from abortion rights to the presidential election. Traditionally, the court issues all of it's rulings by the end of June to go on recess by early July. It's unclear this year however if the Supreme Court will extend its rulings if they are behind because of the pandemic. The Supreme Court said in advance what days justices will issue opinions, but would not announce which specific opinions will be announced on those days. Rulings typically come down around 10 a.m. ET.EXPECTED CASE #1 SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE CHANGES?In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the ruling could allow students in religious schools the ability to seek private scholarships funded through state income-tax credits. For years such programs were thought to be incompatible with Montana's constitutional ban on public aid to religious schools, however the Supreme Court could allow the program to exist. Because similar bans exist in 38 states, the ruling could change the definition of the separation of church and state. EXPECTED CASE #2CHANGE TO ABORTION RIGHTS?In June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, the ruling could impact the future of abortion rights across the country. The ruling examines whether a Louisiana law, which requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges in nearby hospitals, is constitutional. Abortion-rights activists say it will lead to clinics being shut down because most providers don't work with hospitals. More importantly, the ruling could tell anti-abortion leaders across the country that the High Court may be open to changes to Roe v Wade in the future. EXPECTED CASE #3ELECTORAL COLLEGE CONFUSION?In Colorado Department of State v. Baca, the ruling could result in major confusion in the 2020 election. The case is out of Colorado where in 2016, state electors to the electoral college attempted to vote for someone other than the winner of Colorado, Hillary Clinton. The electors were removed and replaced with someone to deliver the actual result, however it raised questions over how much power do these electors really have. EXPECTED CASE #4PRESIDENT TRUMP TAX RETURNS?In Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP and Trump v. Deutsche Bank, the question is whether the president has to comply with subpoenas for personal records. Does the power of the presidency allow President Donald Trump to say "no" when it comes to revealing his tax returns? If the Supreme Court rules against President Trump, it could create a new controversy for the President ahead of the election. 2615

The restrictions will remain in the same terms as implemented since March 21. Both countries will continue coordinating sanitary measures in the border region. The measures will be in force until July 21, 2020.2/2— Embassy of Mexico in the US (@EmbamexEUA) June 16, 2020 278

The U.S. government is investigating the Equifax breach.In an unusual move, the Federal Trade Commission confirmed on Thursday that it has opened a probe into the Equifax debacle, which may have compromised the personal information of as many as 143 million Americans."The FTC typically does not comment on ongoing investigations," Peter Kaplan, the FTC's acting director of public affairs, said in a statement. "However, in light of the intense public interest and the potential impact of this matter, I can confirm that FTC staff is investigating the Equifax data breach."A spokesperson for Equifax said the company is "actively engaging with and being responsive to regulators, federal agencies and legislators and expect to continue to do so in the future."The company's stock dropped another 8% in early trading Thursday following the FTC statement. The stock fell 15% on Wednesday on investor concerns of an impending investigation.The confirmation comes one day after Sen. Mark Warner sent a detailed letter to the acting head of the FTC calling for an investigation into Equifax's handling of the breach.In particular, Warner called for the agency to scrutinize Equifax for potential security lapses and its poor handling of customer service after the breach was disclosed.Earlier this week, a bipartisan group of dozens of senators also sent a letter urging the FTC, Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate Equifax over its executives' stock sales.Three Equifax executives sold shares of the credit-reporting firm worth nearly million shortly after the breach was discovered. The sales came before the breach was announced to the public.Equifax may not be the largest data breach ever in terms of the number of people affected, but it may be more significant because of the sensitive information at risk: social security numbers, addresses and the numbers of some driver's licenses.Maura Healey, the attorney general of Massachusetts, said this week she intends to file the first state lawsuit against Equifax over the breach.Jeb Hensarling, a Republican Congressman from Texas and the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said last Friday that preparations are already underway for a congressional hearing on the matter. 2361

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the Trump administration can end census field operations early, in a blow to efforts to make sure minorities and hard-to-enumerate communities are properly counted in the crucial once-a-decade tally.The decision was not a total loss for plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the administration’s decision to end the count early. They managed to get nearly two extra weeks of counting people as the case made its way through the courts.However, the ruling increased the chances of the Trump administration retaining control of the process that decides how many congressional seats each state gets — and by extension how much voting power each state has.The Supreme Court justices’ ruling came as the nation’s largest association of statisticians, and even the U.S. Census Bureau’s own census takers and partners, have been raising questions about the quality of the data being gathered — numbers that are used to determine how much federal funding and how many congressional seats are allotted to states.After the Supreme Court’s decision, the Census Bureau said field operations would end on Thursday.At issue was a request by the Trump administration that the Supreme Court suspend a lower court’s order extending the 2020 census through the end of October following delays caused by the pandemic. The Trump administration argued that the head count needed to end immediately to give the bureau time to meet a year-end deadline. Congress requires the bureau to turn in by Dec. 31 the figures used to decide the states’ congressional seats — a process known as apportionment.By sticking to the deadline, the Trump administration would end up controlling the numbers used for the apportionment, no matter who wins next month’s presidential election.In a statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the Supreme Court’s decision “regrettable and disappointing,” and said the administration’s actions “threaten to politically and financially exclude many in America’s most vulnerable communities from our democracy.”Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high court’s decision, saying “respondents will suffer substantial injury if the Bureau is permitted to sacrifice accuracy for expediency.”The Supreme Court ruling came in response to a lawsuit by a coalition of local governments and civil rights groups, arguing that minorities and others in hard-to-count communities would be missed if the census ended early. They said the schedule was cut short to accommodate a July order from President Donald Trump that would exclude people in the country illegally from being counted in the numbers used for apportionment.Opponents of the order said it followed the strategy of the late Republican redistricting guru, Thomas Hofeller, who had advocated using voting-age citizens instead of the total population when it came to drawing legislative seats since that would favor Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.Last month, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California sided with the plaintiffs and issued an injunction suspending a Sept. 30 deadline for finishing the 2020 census and a Dec. 31 deadline for submitting the apportionment numbers. That caused the deadlines to revert back to a previous Census Bureau plan that had field operations ending Oct. 31 and the reporting of apportionment figures at the end of April 2021.When the Census Bureau, and the Commerce Department, which oversees the statistical agency, picked an Oct. 5 end date, Koh struck that down too, accusing officials of “lurching from one hasty, unexplained plan to the next ... and undermining the credibility of the Census Bureau and the 2020 Census.”An appellate court panel upheld Koh’s order allowing the census to continue through October but struck down the part that suspended the Dec. 31 deadline for turning in apportionment numbers. The panel of three appellate judges said that just because the year-end deadline is impossible to meet doesn’t mean the court should require the Census Bureau to miss it.The plaintiffs said the ruling against them was not a total loss, as millions more people were counted during the extra two weeks.“Every day has mattered, and the Supreme Court’s order staying the preliminary injunction does not erase the tremendous progress that has been made as a result of the district court’s rulings,” said Melissa Sherry, one of the attorneys for the coalition.Besides deciding how many congressional seats each state gets, the census helps determine how .5 trillion in federal funding is distributed each year.San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said that his city lost 0 million in federal funding over the decade following the 2010 census, and he feared it would lose more this time around. The California city was one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.“A census count delayed is justice denied,” Liccardo said.With plans for the count hampered by the pandemic, the Census Bureau in April had proposed extending the deadline for finishing the count from the end of July to the end of October, and pushing the apportionment deadline from Dec. 31 to next April. The proposal to extend the apportionment deadline passed the Democratic-controlled House, but the Republican-controlled Senate didn’t take up the request. Then, in late July and early August, bureau officials shortened the count schedule by a month so that it would finish at the end of September.The Senate Republicans’ inaction coincided with Trump’s order directing the Census Bureau to have the apportionment count exclude people who are in the country illegally. The order was later ruled unlawful by a panel of three district judges in New York, but the Trump administration appealed that case to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court decision comes as a report by the the American Statistical Association has found that a shortened schedule, dropped quality control procedures, pending lawsuits and the outside politicization of some parts of the 2020 census have raised questions about the quality of the nation’s head count that need to be answered if the final numbers are going to be trusted.The Census Bureau says it has counted 99.9% of households nationwide, though some regions of the country such as parts of Mississippi and hurricane-battered Louisiana fall well below that.As the Census Bureau winds down field operations over the next several days, there will be a push to get communities in those two states counted, said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, one of the litigants in the lawsuit.“That said, the Supreme Court’s order will result in irreversible damage to the 2020 Census,” Clarke said.___Follow Mike Schneider on Twitter at https://twitter.com/MikeSchneiderAP 6792

来源：资阳报