徐州四维彩超什么时候做更好(徐州在哪家医院做胃镜好) (今日更新中)

The USS Midway Museum will host a commemoration event for the 19th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The Fire Department of New York Retirees of San Diego, the National City Fire Department, San Diego Fire & Rescue, the Wounded Warrior Project and flight crews from United and American airlines will pay tribute to those who died as a result of that day. 365

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to weigh in on the battle over pension reform in the city of San Diego. The decision leaves in place a California Supreme Court decision from last year that called pension reform into question and required a lower court to come up with a remedy. It could end up costing the city billions. In 2012, San Diego voters approved Proposition B with 65 percent in-favor. The measure ended pensions for nearly all new city hires, instead switching them to 401(k) type plans. Around the time, the city faced a billion pension liability, comprising 20 percent of the budget. "It is saving us, literally, hundreds of millions of dollars," Mayor Kevin Faulconer said Monday. "That's why it's important, so we can invest dollars back into neighborhoods."The city, however, is now on the legal defensive. Back in 2012, then-mayor Jerry Sanders campaigned on behalf of the measure. Labor unions argued Sanders' involvement required the city to meet and confer with unions before changing their terms of employment. The city argued that Sanders was exercising his First Amendment right to endorse the measure, which got to the ballot via a citizens initiative. The state Public Employee Retirement Board sided with the unions. So did the California Supreme Court, which last year ordered lower courts to decide a remedy. "There is not even a breath of a suggestion in this case that any public officials First Amendment rights have been violated," said Ann Smith, the attorney representing the labor unions. In a statement, Sanders, who now heads the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, called the Supreme Court's decision disappointing but not unexpected. Smith said a lower court decision could make a decision within 30 days. It could impact as many as 4,000 city employees. 1813

The stairs in the entrance of the house used as the home of psychotic killer Buffalo Bill in the 1991 film "The Silence of the Lambs" is seen for sale on Monday, Jan. 11, 2016 in Perryopolis, Pa. Scott and Barbara Lloyd listed the house last summer, but they've dropped the asking price from 0,000 to 0,000. 321

The White House on Monday backed down from its threats to revoke Jim Acosta's press pass."Having received a formal reply from your counsel to our letter of November 16, we have made a final determination in this process: your hard pass is restored," the White House said in a new letter to Acosta. "Should you refuse to follow these rules in the future, we will take action in accordance with the rules set forth above. The President is aware of this decision and concurs."The letter detailed several new rules for reporter conduct at presidential press conferences, including "a single question" from each journalist. Follow-ups will only be permitted "at the discretion of the President or other White House officials."The decision reverses a Friday letter by the White House that said Acosta's press pass could be revoked again right after a temporary restraining order granted by a federal judge expires. That letter -- signed by two of the defendants in the suit, press secretary Sarah Sanders and deputy chief of staff for communications Bill Shine -- cited Acosta's conduct at President Trump's November 7 press conference, where he asked multiple follow-up questions and didn't give up the microphone right away."You failed to abide" by "basic, widely understood practices," the letter to Acosta claimed.CNN won the temporary restraining order earlier on Friday, forcing the White House to restore Acosta's press access 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 that the revocation of Acosta's press pass was a violation of his and the network's First Amendment rights.Many journalists have challenged the administration's actions against Acosta, pointing out that aggressive questioning is a tradition that dates back decades.But Trump appeared eager to advance an argument about White House press corps "decorum," no matter how hypocritical.Since the judge criticized the government for not following due process before banning Acosta on November 7, the letter looked like an effort to establish a paper trail that could empower the administration to boot Acosta again at the end of the month.The letter gave Acosta less than 48 hours to contest the "preliminary decision" and said a "final determination" would be made by Monday at 3 p.m.CNN's lawyers had signaled a willingness to settle after prevailing in court on Friday. Ted Boutrous, an attorney representing CNN and Acosta, said they would welcome "a resolution that makes the most sense so everyone can get out of court and get back to their work."But in a new court filing on Monday morning, CNN's lawyers said the defendants "did not respond to this offer to cooperate." Instead, the letter from Shine and Sanders was an "attempt to provide retroactive due process," the filing alleged.So CNN and Acosta asked the judge to set a schedule of deadlines for motions and hearings that would give the network the chance to win a preliminary injunction, a longer form of court-ordered protection to Acosta's press pass.They were seeking a hearing "for the week of November 26, 2018, or as soon thereafter as possible," according to the court filing.A preliminary injunction could be in effect for much longer than the temporary restraining order, thereby protecting Acosta's access to the White House.In a response Monday morning, government lawyers called the CNN motion a "self-styled 'emergency'" and sought to portray the White House's moves as a lawful next step."Far from constituting an 'emergency,' the White House's initiation of a process to consider suspending Mr. Acosta's hard pass is something this Court's Order anticipated," they said.The DOJ lawyers continued to say that the White House had made "no final determination" on Acosta's access, and asked the court to extend its own deadline, set last week, for a status report due at 3 p.m. Monday, in light of the White House's separate self-imposed deadline for the Acosta decision.At lunchtime, Kelly granted the government's request and extended the status report deadline to 6 p.m. Monday.The case was assigned to Judge Kelly when CNN filed suit last Tuesday. Kelly was appointed to the bench by Trump last year, and confirmed with bipartisan support in the Senate. He heard oral arguments on Wednesday and granted CNN's request for a temporary restraining order on Friday."We are disappointed with the district court's decision," the Justice Department said in response at the time. "The President has broad authority to regulate access to the White House, including to ensure fair and orderly White House events and press conferences. We look forward to continuing to defend the White House's lawful actions."Trump seemed to shrug off the loss, telling Fox's Chris Wallace in an interview that "it's not a big deal."He said the White House would "create rules and regulations for conduct" so that the administration can revoke press passes in the future."If he misbehaves," Trump said, apparently referring to Acosta, "we'll throw him out or we'll stop the news conference.""This is a high-risk confrontation for both sides," Mike Allen of Axios wrote in a Monday item about Trump's new targeting of Acosta. "It turns out that press access to the White House is grounded very much in tradition rather than in plain-letter law. So a court fight could result in a precedent that curtails freedom to cover the most powerful official in the world from the literal front row."The-CNN-Wire 5546

The US Department of Justice said it is working on two fronts to ensure a fair and free election: To protect against voting fraud and to ensure voters’ civil rights are protected.As President Donald Trump continually claims that voting fraud is prevalent throughout the US, the Department of Justice said it has launched voting fraud hotlines to handle claims of voting fraud.While Trump has claimed that voting fraud could cast doubt on the legitimacy on the elections, there have been relatively few instances of recorded voting fraud. The White House released a Heritage Foundation report that found 1,071 instances of voting fraud, but those instances date back into the 20th century, making up a very small fraction of 1% of all votes cast since then.Department of Justice attorneys say they stand at the ready to assist voters in ensuring they will be able to vote on Election Day.“Ensuring free and fair elections depends in large part on the cooperation of the American electorate,” the US Attorneys’ Office said in a statement. “It is imperative that those who have specific information about discrimination or election fraud make that information available.”The DOJ said it will have FBI special agents available in each field office and resident agency throughout the country to receive allegations of election fraud and other election abuses on Election Day. In addition, those who believe federal voting rights have been violated can reach the FBI at 800-253-3931, or by filing a report here.What are possible violations of law?“Federal law protects against such crimes as intimidating or bribing voters, buying and selling votes, impersonating voters, altering vote tallies, stuffing ballot boxes, and marking ballots for voters against their wishes or without their input,” the US Attorneys Office said. “It also contains special protections for the rights of voters, and provides that they can vote free from acts that intimidate or harass them. For example, actions of persons designed to interrupt or intimidate voters at polling places by questioning or challenging them, or by photographing or videotaping them, under the pretext that these are actions to uncover illegal voting may violate federal voting rights law. Further, federal law protects the right of voters to mark their own ballot or to be assisted by a person of their choice (where voters need assistance because of disability or illiteracy).”For those looking to report possible instances of voting fraud, the Department of Justice encourages voters to call their region’s US Attorneys Office. 2586

来源：资阳报