Tumgik
#Amendments became effective November 20
dwellordream · 15 days
Text
“Women streamed into public office in the 1920s, the largest single increase in women’s officeholding to date, leveling off only after 1930. The Democrats and Republicans began to mandate equal representation of men and women on party committees. Altogether, these achievements covering peace, politics, labor, health care, and the home seemed to indicate a wide acceptance of women’s significance in the public arena.
Yet by 1924 popular magazines were running articles (written by men) with such titles as “Is Women’s Suffrage a Failure?” and “Women’s Ineffective Use of the Vote.” There were signs, even early on, that not all was going according to plan. The only woman in Congress in 1921, Alice Robertson, was an anti-suffragist. Women vastly increased their numbers in office, but the meaning of that increase must be set in a wider context. In 1924, there were 84 women legislators in 30 states. Five years later there were 200, an increase of almost 250 percent. But while there were 200 women in office, there were 10,000 men.
…To some triumphant suffragists the next logical step was an equal rights amendment, which would sweep away all remaining forms of discrimination at once. Activist Alice Paul spearheaded the drive for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). She presided over the National Women’s Party (NWP) when in November 1923, the 75th anniversary of the first women’s rights convention, at Seneca Falls, New York, it announced the text of the ERA: “Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction.” A month later the amendment was introduced into Congress.
To Paul, it was logical that the ERA should succeed suffrage as the focus of NWP. Like suffrage, the ERA was only part of the feminist agenda, but it would give women power, which they could then use as they pleased. Instead of becoming the new mass women’s movement, however, the NWP dwindled. It emerged from the suffrage fight in 1920 with 35,000 members. By the end of the decade, it had sunk to 1,000.
…But the divisions among women were not all caused by the women themselves. For one thing, the raids and prosecutions of the Red Scare had a chilling effect on women’s groups. Facing possible jail terms or deportation simply for associating with radical women, some women turned a cold shoulder to former friends. In an era in which organizing at all was suspect, women in the 1920s could either organize together for equality and rights and be labeled “red” and fired, or they could try to go it alone.
It was not then surprising that women in their 20s and 30s who wanted to succeed in the public world of business or politics believed the most important thing to leave behind was “sex-consciousness,” their sense of themselves as women who shared interests with other women. They abandoned any organized quest for general social reform and opted instead for individualism. “Breaking into the human race,” as they put it, and individual success in the world as it was became their goals.
…Despite antagonism toward feminist groups, the 1920s found activist women not so much absent as scattered. No longer were they the “woman movement,” as they had been in the 19th century; now they were women. They still organized, but in a multitude of smaller groups that often opposed each other. Every woman seemed to belong to at least one group, and often to several. There were church groups, parents’ associations, self-improvement clubs, and civic leagues. Many women returned to the causes that had most concerned them before the peak of the suffrage movement.
Some threw all their efforts into the peace movement. Others returned to issues such as social reform, hours and wages for women, clean city streets and water, adequate schooling and playgrounds, and safe factory conditions, for example. In the South, new interracial efforts against lynching occupied some women. In the Southwest, Hispanic women worked for bilingual education.”
- Sarah Jane Deutsch, “The Nature of ‘Liberation’: Inventing a Public Woman.” in From Ballots to Breadlines: American Women, 1920-1940
4 notes · View notes
nokturna9 · 3 years
Text
Recent changes Sint Maarten corporate law March 29th 2021Amendments became effective November 20, 2019 will affect persons who are involved in BV, NV, foundation, private foundation, association or other company forms in Sint Maarten.
Recent changes Sint Maarten corporate law March 29th 2021Amendments became effective November 20, 2019 will affect persons who are involved in BV, NV, foundation, private foundation, association or other company forms in Sint Maarten.
Recent changes in Sint Maarten corporate law Authors: JN Johanny Nicastia CVA Chris van Amersfoort ARTICLE 29 March 2021The amendments became effective as of November 20, 2019 and will affect persons who are involved in or transact business with a BV, NV, foundation, private foundation, association or other company forms in Sint Maarten. The amendment includes the following changes: The…
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
1 note · View note
Link
LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN
September 21, 20216 hr ago
Tonight, the House of Representatives passed a funding bill that would both keep the government from shutting down and prevent a default on the U.S. debt. The vote was 220 to 211, with all Democrats voting in favor and all Republicans voting against.
There are two financial deadlines looming. One is the need for Congress to fund the government. In late December 2020, Congress passed a huge bill that, among other things, funded the government through September 30. The new fiscal year starts on October 1, and if the government is not funded, it will have to shut down, ending all federal activities that are not considered imperative. This year, such activities would include a wide range of programs enacted to combat the economic crisis sparked by the coronavirus pandemic.
The second deadline is lifting the debt ceiling. That’s the amount of money Congress authorizes the government to borrow. Beginning in 1939, rather than approving individual issues of debt, Congress gave the government more flexibility in borrowing by simply agreeing to an upper limit that included all the different financial instruments the government uses. The debt ceiling is not connected directly to any individual bill, and it is not an appropriation for any specific program. It enables the government to borrow money to pay for programs in bills already passed. If the debt ceiling is not raised when necessary, the government will default on its debts, creating a financial catastrophe.
There is a long history behind our national funding systems. Until now, the U.S. has always protected its debt. After the Civil War, Democrats were determined to destroy the strong federal government the Republicans had built to fight the Confederacy. They tried to change the terms under which people had invested in wartime national bonds. Horrified at what would undermine confidence in the survival of the Union, the Republicans protected the debt in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The fourth section of that amendment reads: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”
Former Confederates challenged the nation through financing once again, in 1879. In that year, in control of Congress for the first time since the Civil War, Democrats refused to pass appropriations bills unless those bills included their own policy priorities, especially the removal of the federal troops still in the South to protect black voting (it is a myth that federal troops left the South in 1877).
Republican leader and Union veteran James A. Garfield had fought the Confederates on the battlefields and recognized that destroying the government by starving it was no different from destroying it through arms. He urged President Rutherford B. Hayes to veto the Democrats’ appropriations bills, and Hayes did, five times. Democrats backed down, but not before voters turned against them. The next year, voters put Garfield into the White House.
In the modern era, shutdowns emerged as a policy tool after the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act moved control over budgeting from the executive branch to Congress. Disagreements over funding in President Jimmy Carter’s term had little effect on the country, since government systems continued during them under the assumption that funding would eventually materialize. That changed in the early 1980s, when legal opinions said it was illegal to spend money that hadn’t been appropriated.
Beginning in the 1980s, government shutdowns became a tool of Republicans determined to cut taxes and dismantle the active government in place since 1933. In November 1981, President Ronald Reagan furloughed more than 240,000 federal workers in a fight with Congress over budget cuts, but full-fledged government shutdowns began in earnest after Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 1995 for the first time since 1954.
Demanding steep budget cuts in Medicare, public health, the environment, and education, House Speaker Newt Gingrich refused to compromise with Democratic president Bill Clinton, who opposed the cuts. Without funding, the federal government shut down all non-essential activity for a total of 28 days between November 1995 and January 1996: National parks shut down, government contracts ceased to operate, applications for visas and passports went unanswered. The crisis pushed Clinton’s poll numbers higher than they had been since his election.
In 2013, the government shut down again from October 1 to October 17 as Republicans tried to defund the Affordable Care Act. It shut down yet again for its longest stretch in 2019, after then-president Donald Trump demanded $5.7 billion in funding for a border wall from a Congress controlled by his own party.
To avoid shutdowns, Congress can pass a funding bill or a continuing resolution to give themselves more time to pass such a funding bill. That is part of what is in the bill the House passed this evening: funding until December 3.
The other part of the House bill is a suspension of the debt ceiling until December 2022, after the midterm elections. Congress has raised the debt ceiling more than 100 times since it first went into effect: 18 times under Reagan, and most recently in 2019 under former president Trump, when Democrats joined Republicans in suspending the limit until 2021. In that time, Republicans added about $6.5 trillion to the debt through coronavirus spending and tax cuts.
Now, though, Republicans are refusing to support an increase in the debt ceiling, trying to force Democrats to separate the continuing resolution that funds the government from the higher debt ceiling.
What is at stake is the nature of the American government. Republican lawmakers begrudgingly passed social welfare legislation to address the pandemic in the months before the 2020 election, but they are still keen on dismantling a government that regulates business, provides a social safety net, and promotes infrastructure. Creating debt to cut taxes on corporations and the wealthiest Americans fits their belief that the economy and society are most efficient when successful men are able to run them as they see fit.  
Biden and the Democrats are trying to counter that worldview with their own belief that the country will work best when the government guarantees everyone equal access to resources and equality before the law. After forty years of the Republicans’ austerity, achieving that equality, including rebuilding crumbling infrastructure, will cost money. At the same time, Democrats do not want to assume full responsibility for increasing the debt ceiling when much of the debt it covers was created by Republicans during the Trump administration.
Right now, neither side is indicating it will back down. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who has voted to raise or suspend the debt ceiling 32 times in his career, including 3 times under Trump (who contributed about $7.8 trillion to today’s $28 trillion national debt), says he will not vote to suspend the debt ceiling and will try to hold his caucus against it. He says it’s the Democrats’ problem.
A default on the nation’s financial obligations has never happened before and would create an economic crisis echoing the destruction of the nation Garfield talked about in 1879. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen says it “could trigger a spike in interest rates, a steep drop in stock prices and other financial turmoil. Our current economic recovery would reverse into recession, with billions of dollars of growth and millions of jobs lost.” Financial services firm Moody's Analytics warned that a default would cost up to 6 million jobs, create an unemployment rate of nearly 9% and wipe out $15 trillion in household wealth.
That Republicans are willing to risk yet another step that will make America look like a failed state is stunning.
But even if that’s not their ultimate goal, posturing and negotiations over finances are running out the congressional clock while the Democrats’ very popular signature issues—infrastructure and voting rights—languish.
Notes:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/debt-ceiling-limit-what-to-know/
​​https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/09/us/politics/longest-government-shutdown.html
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/09/21/government-shutdown-house-passes-funding-debt-ceiling-bill.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/09/20/white-house-debt-ceiling/
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/09/mcconnell-insists-he-wont-help-democrats-raise-debt-limit.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/21/debt-limit-republicans-default-mcconnell-cruz/
LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON
5 notes · View notes
tabloidtoc · 3 years
Text
National Enquirer, November 30
You can buy a copy of this issue for your very own at my eBay store: https://www.ebay.com/str/bradentonbooks
Cover: The Kennedy family torn apart 
Tumblr media
Page 2: Angry and isolated Caitlyn Jenner is on a downward emotional spiral that some friends believe have left her one step from the psycho ward -- she feels shunned by her own family and can’t find romance and is unhappy with with her looks -- Caitlyn is so tense and insecure and sensitive about everything so she’s diving into more and more prospective projects in a desperate effort to kickstart her flagging career and she’s flying off the handle all the time plus she’s tried to drown her sorrows in a new round of cosmetic improvements including a face-lift and lipo to trim her waist and thighs but she’s horrified she’s still not happy with her looks after all her surgeries 
Page 3: Lovestruck Halle Berry has leapt headfirst into a red-hot romance with Van Hunt but the singer is a skirt-chasing cheat -- Van and his ex-wife split in 2007 after she said he abandoned her and their only child to move to L.A. and she claimed the musician admitted adultery shortly before divorce documents were filed -- Halle would be disturbed to hear that Van walked out on his son because she’s a very family-oriented person and she could never imagine living on the other side of the country to her kids -- Van’s grown and matured since the divorce and is sure to have shared all about his situation with Halle and he’s said to be on good terms with his ex-wife but people say once a cheater always a cheater and that’s got to be at the back of Halle’s mind 
Page 4: Runaway Prince Harry is reeling after being publicly snubbed by his royal relatives and now he is having second thoughts about ditching his official duties for a glam life in Hollywood; he’s finally realizing just what he gave up when he left England with wife Meghan Markle and their son Archie and he’s wondering if it was worth it -- the simmering rift between Harry and the royals exploded after they refused his request to be part of Britain’s Remembrance Day ceremonies to honor fallen soldiers so Harry retaliated by staging a photo op at Los Angeles National Cemetery with Meghan with his military medals pinned on his navy suit; Harry was banned from wearing his military uniform when he quit royal duties and he also had to give up his military duties which devastated him -- photos from the cemetery released by the couple triggered an immediate backlash and they were accused of being shameless publicity-seekers trying to steal headlines and overshadow the royals doing their duty back home; it was a disaster and Harry was shocked -- he’s reaching out to the palace to make amends but calls to his brother Prince William and father Prince Charles have gone unanswered
* Katie Holmes and Emilio Vitolo Jr.’s hot new romance is in a pressure cooker as their families fight to claim the couple as their guests for the holidays -- things were going great for them but this tug-of-war may tear them apart because Emilio’s folks told him they want him home with them but Katie is desperate to spend Christmas with her relatives in Ohio and they really want to meet her new boyfriend and Katie is feeling guilty because she spends so much time with Emilio’s clan at his dad’s Manhattan eatery so she thinks it’s only fair that he does this for her but Emilio’s never missed a holiday gathering with his own family and there are a lot of them he hasn’t seen because of the pandemic 
Page 5: Celine Dion is finally ready to put the past behind her as the fifth anniversary of her beloved husband’s death approaches in January and she is planning to leave Las Vegas with their sons and she is pining to return to her native Quebec and give twins Nelson and Eddy and 19-year-old Rene-Charles a taste of her own childhood -- Celine had been careful to not upset her kids’ lives since the death of their dad from throat cancer but she now believes the boys would benefit from spending time in The Great White North -- she also thinks it might be more likely she’ll find lasting love in her home country 
Page 6: Defiantly plump Lizzo has ditched her diet and frightened friends are staging an intervention to get her to a fat farm to save her life -- Lizzo had committed to eating vegan after weighing in at 350 pounds but once on vacation it lasted like two days before she couldn’t take it any longer -- she has anxiety issues and uses food to comfort herself but the stress the weight is putting on her heart and other organs could have a detrimental effect on her health and cut her life short
Page 7: Mark Harmon and Pauley Perrette have agreed to meet for peace talks after a long-simmering feud triggered her angry departure from NCIS and Mark reached out to her to invite her back -- Mark feels bad about how Pauley left the show and knows she played a big role in its success and he’s anxious to set things right between them and bring back one of the show’s favorite all-time characters for fans -- Mark also feels he’s been painted unfairly in Pauley’s departure and would like to know he was not behind it but the two clashed for years with Pauley charging Mark’s bullying caused her to quit the show and Pauley even tweeted she is terrified of Harmon and him attacking her -- while Pauley is not saying yes or no to returning to the show she’s definitely willing to sit down and talk 
* The drama between sickly Phil Collins and his squatting ex-wife Orianne Cevey is really getting down and dirty with Orianne charging that Phil degenerated into a pill-popping addict who stopped showering and brushing his teeth and was impotent and she also claimed Phil became emotionally and verbally abusive and refused to provide emotional support or love or care for her -- Phil’s lawyers said Orianne’s charges are scandalous and scurrilous and unethical and for the most part patently false or grossly exaggerated
Page 8: Power-hungry host Savannah Guthrie is gunning to be the reigning queen of Today and is willing to walk over anyone to achieve her goal and her blind ambition is ripping the once-invincible morning show apart and she even used Al Roker’s prostate cancer diagnosis to push her own agenda and capitalize on Al’s absence for surgery to demand more airtime for herself -- every meeting starts with the focus on whatever Savannah wants and the staff is far from happy about it and morale has never been worse -- Savannah has constantly pushed the producers for Jenna Bush Hager and herself to take the lead on big news stories and keep Hoda Kotb stuck in the fluffy stuff and Hoda’s completely pissed off -- Savannah’s rising star has come with temper tantrums and diva-like demands -- fed-up Hoda recently met with friends of Gayle King and there is speculation the two women could make a powerful pairing and revitalize third-place CBS This Morning 
Page 9: Regis Philbin’s death certificate reveals paramedics waged a desperate 40-minute battle to try to save his life -- he suffered a heart attack just after 3 a.m. on July 24 at his home in Connecticut and he was rushed to the emergency room where medics fought to save his life but he eventually succumbed at 4:18 a.m. 
Page 10: Hot Shots -- Queen Latifah on the NYC set of The Equalizer, socially distant host Ellen DeGeneres went the extra mile to greet guest Jimmy Kimmel on her talk show, Steve Schirripa and Bridget Moynahan shot Blue Bloods in NYC, Kristen Taekman prettied up her pout in L.A., Tracy Morgan attended the ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new community center at Brooklyn’s Marcy Houses 
Page 11: Smitten ‘70s TV stars Patrick Duffy and Linda Purl may owe their late-in-life romance to Zoom but according to the actress the couple didn’t rush their relationship -- the two have been friends for decades but a COVID-19 group video chat helped spark love during lockdown -- after one of their lengthy one-on-one conversations Patrick jumped into his car and drove 20 hours from L.A. to her Colorado home like a lovestruck teenager 
* Beloved Jeopardy! host Alex Trebek left behind a final touching message for his fans and it will be extremely moving -- Alex’s final message will follow his last episode of Jeopardy! set to air on Christmas Day
Page 12: Straight Shuter -- Joel Michaely at the opening of The Comeback Trail (picture)
* Kelly Clarkson’s divorce meant she booted ex Brandon Blackstock out of her professional life but he’ll still be in her work life thanks to Blake Shelton -- Brandon might not be Kelly’s manager anymore but he still manages Blake which might get awkward when Kelly runs into him backstage at The Voice
* Keeping Up with the Kardashians is notching all-time low ratings and the family is blaming Kim Kardashian saying she’s lost her sense of humor and she’s too busy trying to be taken seriously
* Nitpicky Ryan Seacrest has ditched celebrity designer Nate Berkus’ husband Jeremiah Brent as his decorator because they had a nasty falling out over the renovation of Ryan’s townhouse in New York City 
Page 13: Steve Harvey’s daughter Lori Harvey escaped jail time after cops claimed she fled the scene of a Beverly Hills car crash in 2019 -- she was charged with two misdemeanors for hit-and-run and delaying a police investigation after she walked away from a smashup that damaged her Mercedes G-wagon and nearly destroyed another vehicle but she cut a deal with prosecutors and pleaded no contest to resisting arrest and will serve two years probation -- she reportedly had been texting at the time of the accident 
* Reba McEntire confirmed she turned down a regular role on The Voice which left the life-changing gig open for Blake Shelton -- Reba said she didn’t think she could ever tell somebody that they’re terrible 
* Cancer warrior Olivia Newton-John revealed she kicked a dependence on morphine with medical marijuana -- to cope with her pain during her third bout with breast cancer that had spread in 2017 doctors put her on mega doses of the highly addictive drug and she weaned herself off the morphine with the cannabis which she thinks is incredible and says people should know that because you’re not going to die from cannabis and you can use it to wean off morphine and she’s continued on a regime with cannabis ever since 
Page 14: Crime 
Page 15: Los Angeles’ newly elected District Attorney George Gascon has vowed to reopen the probe into actress Natalie Wood’s mysterious drowning and her husband Robert Wagner could finally be dragged before a grand jury -- Gascon said he’ll work with investigators from the L.A. Sheriff’s Department homicide squad to reexamine the case after the previous D.A. refused to present evidence to a grand jury -- Natalie drowned in 1981 while enjoying a holiday with Robert and actor Christopher Walken off Catalina Island 
Page 16: The Talk has been thrown into chaos by cast shake-ups and co-host Sharon Osbourne’s power grab and may be on the verge of being silenced forever -- staffers are expecting the worst after popular co-host Eve announced she was splitting after four seasons becoming the latest in a long line of damaging departures and while Eve blamed her exit on COVID-19 travel restrictions from England much of the blame goes to self-promotional Sharon’s relentless efforts to take over the show after former moderator Julie Chen’s departure last year -- Sharon has made it clear she’s in charge now and the other ladies are not thrilled with being reduced to supporting cast and fans have started calling for Sharon’s head 
Page 17: John Lennon’s widow Yoko Ono has sparked fears she’s nearing the end after handing her business dealings off to their son Sean Lennon -- the wheelchair-bound Yoko had been managing the late Beatle’s vast $800 million holdings since his 1980 shooting death but it’s now beyond her abilities
Page 18: American Life 
Page 19: Johnny Depp is writing and planning to star in a tell-all movie about his divorce war with loathed ex-wife Amber Heard -- after a U.K. court ruled he was physically abusive toward Amber during their marriage Johnny wants to tell the world his version of the marriage and he will set people straight about what happened and clear his name to millions to fans and he believes this is a slam dunk once he gets it in front of the right producer especially as he’s more than willing to play himself 
* The family of vicious Boston mobster James “Whitey” Bulger has filed a lawsuit against the federal government accusing prison officials of orchestrating the 2018 hit on the Mob boss -- the action accuses the Federal Bureau of Prisons of intentional or deliberately indifferent deeds that led to the murder of the wheelchair-bound mobster just hours after he was inexplicably transferred to the Hazelton penitentiary in West Virginia where he was beaten to death by prisoners to keep him from singing about corruption inside the FBI and the Department of Justice -- Whitey was bludgeoned with a padlock stuffed inside a sock and his murderers had enough time to cut out his tongue and eyes to make it seem like a classic Mafia hit 
Page 20: Angelina Jolie lives in constant fear one of her six children will be kidnapped and held for ransom according to her former bodyguard -- Angie and her ex Brad Pitt are worth hundreds of millions which Angie feared provided plenty of incentive for criminals to target her offspring
* Hollywood Hookups -- Sofia Richie and Matthew Morton dating, Sabrina Parr and Lamar Odom split, Daniela Rajic and Paul George engaged
Page 21: Justin Bieber’s pastor Carl Lentz lost his job over a steamy affair with an exotic beauty -- Lentz was fired from the megachurch Hillsong and his mistress claimed the two were in love 
* Wildlife lover Bindi Irwin has announced 20 weeks into pregnancy her baby is the size of a tiny emu -- she delivered the news flash beneath a photo with her husband Chandler Powell appropriately taken at the Australia Zoo
* Hugh Grant made a bizarre confession admitting his bout with COVID-19 left him wanting to sniff strangers’ armpits -- Hugh revealed he tested positive for coronavirus antibodies and believes he contracted the bug in February and the illness caused a feeling of an enormous man sitting on his chest but Hugh also claimed he was rattled by losing his sense of smell which is a known symptom of the disease and purposely sought out putrid odors to test his useless nose 
Page 22: Jailed Ghislaine Maxwell’s latest devastating court defeat has heightened fears that the woman accused of being billionaire sex fiend Jeffrey Epstein’s madam will die behind bars just as he did -- since July Maxwell has been locked up in solitary confinement at Brooklyn’s Metropolitan Detention Center where her jailers subject her to daily strip and cell searches and is monitored 24 hours a day she doesn’t suffer the same fate as Epstein whose death was officially ruled a suicide -- now the U.S. Court of Appeals has denied her bid to publicly name the women who have come forward in the media and civil actions as Epstein’s alleged victims and implicated the British socialite in his twisted sex ring so the damning decision upheld an earlier ruling and shattered her defense team’s bid to investigate and refute the claims of the unnamed accusers
Page 23: Tom Cruise’s plan to shoot the first movie in space may be in jeopardy after Russia vowed to beat him to it -- Tom has teamed with tech billionaire Elon Musk’s SpaceX program to film the unnamed project on the International Space Station in October 2021 -- but a rival Russian agency plans to already be in outer space by then and the Russian film is titled Challenge and its team has sent out a casting call for a female lead -- Tom sees this as a gauntlet being thrown down and he always rises to the challenge and he’s told SpaceX they have to get up there before next October
Page 28: Cover Story -- Kennedy curse rips clan apart -- the family takes sides as Michael Skakel skates and William Kennedy Smith stalls $50 million will 
Page 32: Ric Ocasek’s oldest son has blasted him as a deadbeat dad who was never there -- Chris Otcasek who uses the original spelling of the family name wrote on Instagram that his father in essence died the day he was born and he was never present and he was never there -- Ric left his mom who was his second wife Suzanne while she was pregnant with their second child 
* Lisa Marie Presley has had a medical emergency so severe it brought her bitter custody trial with fourth ex-husband Michael Lockwood to a halt 
Page 36: Health, Ask the Vet 
Page 38: Pope John Paul II was aware that disgraced and defrocked Cardinal Theodore McCarrick was a pedophile but elevated him anyway to the powerful post of Archbishop of Washington D.C. in 2001 -- McCarrick had showered over $600,000 in donations on powerful clerics including Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict while facing allegations of abuse -- Pope Francis finally defrocked McCarrick in 2019 
Page 42: Red Carpet -- Mandy Moore 
Page 45: Spot the Differences -- Emma Corrin as Princess Diana in The Crown 
Page 47: Odd List 
1 note · View note
Text
Complete Timeline of “Back to the Future”
The entire trilogy takes place over the course of about two weeks from Marty McFly’s perspective, two days for an outside observer in 1985.  We are given specific dates and times, often minute-by-minute, so we can piece together a complete timeline with time stamps.  All times are in PST (Pacific Standard).
Part 1
Friday, October 25, 1985, 8:18 AM PST: The first movie begins with shots of Doc’s clocks and his automated breakfast machine.  The clocks actually say 7:53, but we soon learn they are 25 minutes slow.  We are soon introduced to Marty McFly, who accidentally overloads Doc’s giant amp around 8:23 or 8:24
Friday, October 25, 1985, 8:25 AM: Doc’s clocks all strike 8:00, and Marty realizes he is late for school.  The thing is, he’s wearing a watch in this scene, and moreover he must have woken up to an alarm set on his bedroom clock, so how does he NOT know what time it actually is?  Moving on; cue the “Power of Love” skateboarding-behind-cars sequence.  Marty and Jennifer sneak into school too late, and Mr. Strickland gives him another tardy slip and the whole “slacker” spiel.  “The future’s gonna change,” Marty says.
Friday, October 25, 1985, afternoon: after school, Marty’s band, the Pinheads, audition for the big dance.  A real square of a teacher tells them to stop playing because they’re just too darn loud; I did not know who Huey Lewis was when I first saw this movie, so I didn’t realize this was a celebrity cameo meant to be a joke, I just figured he was a stuffy old man who isn’t with the times.  Either way, Marty is dejected, but Jennifer tells him to send in his audition tape to the record company anyway.  Marty ogles a new 4x4 truck, “Save the Clock Tower!” he gets a flier, Jennifer’s dad picks her up to take her to her grandma’s house.
Friday, October 25, 1985, evening: Marty returns home to find the car totaled (there goes his date at the lake with Jennifer).  We are introduced to Biff and the McFly family.  One awkward family dinner and a ton of exposition later, and we learn everything we need to know about George and Lorraine’s first meeting back in 1955; Lorraine’s dad hit George with his car, and it was love at first sight.
Saturday, October 26, 1985, 12:28 AM: Doc calls Marty, tells him to swing by his lab and pick up his camera before meeting him at Twin Pines Mall at 1:15.
Saturday, October 26, 1985, 1:15 AM: Marty arrives at Twin Pines Mall just as the clock ticks over to 1:16.  The next few minutes are thoroughly documented.  Doc emerges from his van in a souped up Delorean DMC-12.
1:18 AM: Doc begins his spiel for the camera, giving the date, time, and location of Temporal Experiment Number 1.
1:19 AM: “Einstein’s clock is in precise synchronization with my control watch.” He remote controls the Delorean to the opposite end of the parking lot and floors it towards him and Marty.
1:20:00 AM: At exactly one-twenty and zero seconds, the world’s first Temporal Displacement occurs, Marty thinks the Delorean explodes, but it actually just made a jump into the future, “one minute into the future to be exact.”  Doc had nerves of steel to test it for the first time by driving it straight at him.
1:21:00 AM: Exactly one minute later, the Delorean reappears covered in ice, a special effect that the filmmakers stop using because it became impractical to coat the car with ice every time it travels through time.  Some ice is always visible, but never to this extent again.
1:22 AM: Doc opens the Delorean to discover Einstein is perfectly fine; to him, the trip was instantaneous.  The experiment was a complete success!  Doc prepares for his historic journey as the first human to travel through time; he plans to go forward 25 years, later amended to 30 because it’s a nice round number.
1:34 AM: Doc is shot to death by Libyan terrorists because he used the plutonium they stole to build the time machine instead of the bomb they wanted (the less we think about the implications, the better).
Saturday, October 26, 1985, 1:35 AM: Marty flees from the terrorists in the Delorean, accidentally turns on the time circuits and blasts himself back to 1955.
Saturday, November 5, 1955, 6:15 AM: Marty arrives on Peabody farm, is mistaken for an alien and shot at.  He drives away, accidentally running over one of the twin pines in the process.  The exact time is not shown on screen except for the 6 (the last two digits are obscured), but the DVD menu says 6:15 so I’m sticking with it.  The Delorean breaks down shortly after, and he hides it behind the Lyon Estates billboard.  He walks into town, “Hill Valley 2 Miles.”
Saturday. November 5, 1955, 8:29: “Mr. Sandman” sequence, Marty walks around courtyard square, dazed and confused.  It took him over two hours to drive from the mall to his house and then walk 2 miles into town, so of course he’s confused.  The clock tower chimes 8:30, the first time Marty’s ever heard it go off.  He enters Lou’s Cafe to find Doc’s address in the phone book, and encounters a young George and Biff.  George bikes away, and Marty gives chase.  Shortly after, George falls out of a tree while peeping on Lorraine like a creep, and is almost hit by her dad’s car; Marty pushes him out of the way, taking his place in the timeline.  He hits his head and is knocked out.
“Almost 9 hours” later (so around 6-ish PM): Marty awakens in young Lorraine’s bedroom.  She has the hots for him, Florence Nightingale style.  He has dinner with the Baines family soon after, though the clock behind Lorraine’s parents says it’s 8:35.  He leaves after his mom grabs his thigh (ew), and goes to find Doc at his mansion before he burned it down for the insurance money (this is never stated on screen, but the implication is clear).  Doc doesn’t believe he’s from the future until he recounts the story about the wet toilet and the flux capacitor (it makes sense in context).  Doc deduces that Marty messed up the timeline by interfering with his parent’s first meeting, so they have to find a way to get them back together.
Monday, November 7, 1955, morning: The date is never given, but we can assume Doc and Marty wanted to scope out the school as soon as possible, so Monday it is.  Marty tries to introduce George to Lorraine, but she would rather introduce herself to him (ew)
November 7, lunchtime: Marty talks to George in the cafeteria, and almost gets into a fight with Biff after he assaults Lorraine.
November 7, afternoon: George goes home after school with Marty in tow, “why are you following me?”  George tells him that he’s not ready to ask Lorraine out, and that nobody on this planet can change his mind.
Tuesday, November 8, 1955, 1:23 AM: Marty dresses in his radiation suit and visits George, pretending to be “Darth Vader, an extraterrestrial from the planet Vulcan.”  He threatens to melt George’s brain with more Van Halen tapes if he doesn’t ask Lorraine to the dance.  Mission accomplished.
November 8, afternoon: George skipped school that day, having overslept because “Darth Vader” knocked him out with chloroform (in a deleted scene).  Marty encourages him to go into Lou’s Cafe and tell Lorraine that he is her density- I mean destiny.  All goes well until Biff shows up; Marty gets into a fight followed by a chase through courtyard square where he accidentally introduces the town to the concept of skateboarding.  Biff crashes into a manure truck, doing $300 damage to his car.  Later that day, Doc and Marty go over the plan to go Back to the Future TM (the model is so crude, it’s not even to scale or painted).  Lorraine followed Marty to Doc’s house and asks him to ask her to the dance.  He reluctantly accepts.
Wednesday, November 9, afternoon: Marty and George go over their plan for the dance.  Marty will “take advantage” of his mom (ew), and George will come to her rescue.  This date isn’t given either, but we can assume it is the next day because they were wearing different clothes and I don’t think Marty would wait more than a day to go over his plan (time is of the essence).
Saturday, November 12, 1955, 7:55 PM: Doc sets up the “weather experiment” in courtyard square, Marty writes him a letter warning him of the terrorists (he doesn’t go into detail, he just says “you will be shot by terrorists.”  Doc must be very surprised at what shenanigans his future self will get into).
8:59 PM: George is at the dance, dancing like a dork, and Marty and Lorraine arrive in Doc’s car.  Marty is nervous as hell because he doesn’t want to feel up his own mom, but Lorraine is down to clown (ew).  She kisses him, but is grossed out because he’s like her brother or something.  Biff and his stooges pull him out of the car and throw him in the Starlighters’ trunk; Biff begins assaulting Lorraine.
9:00 PM: George goes out to fake-confront Marty, only to real-confront Biff.  He finally manages to stand up for himself and the woman he loves, knocking Biff out with one punch. Hooray!
9:31 PM: Doc checks four different watches to deduce that Marty is running late (they’re cutting it close).  Marvin Berry sliced his hand open helping break Marty out of his trunk, so Marty takes over on guitar.  Earth Angel, George and Lorraine kiss, the timeline is restored, Johnny B Goode, “your kids are gonna love it.”  Marty leaves George and Lorraine on good terms and heads out to courtyard square.
9:55 PM: Doc checks three more watches, and Marty arrives just in time, having changed back into his “life preserver” vest.  The plan begins to unfurl.
9:56:38 PM exactly: Doc says the lightning bolt is 7 minutes and 22 seconds away, which strikes at exactly 10:04.  Doc finds the latter and rips it up.
9:58 PM: a branch falls on the wire, disconnecting it.  Doc climbs the clock tower with a rope so he can pull it back up.
9:59 PM: the clock ticks at runtime 1:34:41, Doc emerges from the top of the tower and pulls up the plug.
10:00 PM: the clock ticks at runtime 1:35:30 (this minute was 49 seconds long), Marty tries to tell Doc about the terrorists, but he has to get going because time is running out.
10:01 PM: the clock ticks at runtime 1:36:09 (this one was 39 seconds), Marty drives to the end of the runway and resets the time circuits to give him 11 extra minutes to warn Doc (only 11? you’re cutting it close as is, Marty).  Doc slips on the clock’s facade, almost dropping the plug.
10:02 PM: the clock ticks at runtime 1:38:00 (111 seconds), the Delorean won’t start, the alarm goes off, everything is going wrong.  Marty slams his head in desperation and the engine kicks to life (Doc’s calculations were wrong; he told Marty to floor it when the alarm went off, but he started a few seconds late and still made it.  If he had floored it on time, he would have been several seconds too early and hit the wire before the lightning struck).
10:03 PM: the clock ticks at runtime 1:39:50 (110 seconds), Doc plugs in one end of the wire, which unplugs the other end.  Marty is almost there, so Doc ziplines down to the ground and runs over to the lamppost [note; the Delorean’s time circuits read 10:03 before the clock tower ticks over to 10:03]
Saturday, November 12, 1955, 10:04 PM: the clock ticks at runtime 1:40:38 (48 seconds).  Lightning strikes the clock tower just as the Delorean hits the wire, sending Marty Back to the Future TM.
Saturday, October 26, 1985, 1:24 AM: the Delorean rematerializes in courtyard square, crashing into the movie theater, but otherwise intact.  The engine gives out before Marty can head to the mall, and the terrorists drive past him.  He gives chase on foot, but doesn’t make it in time. [Note: a digital clock on courtyard square says it was 1:23 when Marty arrived, ticking over to 1:24 after he emerges from the Delorean.  The Delorean’s time circuits are consistently a minute ahead]
1:33 AM: Marty arrives at Lone Pine Mall just in time to see the terrorists gun Doc down. He sees himself jump into the Delorean at 1:34, and blast into the past after a short chase.  The terrorists crash into a photo kiosk and the van rolls over, presumably killing them (we never see the van hit the ground, we just see it start tipping, but the camera cuts away and we never see them emerge and try to collect Doc’s body).  Doc is in fact alive, having taped Marty’s latter back together and worn a bullet proof vest, the first of several in the series.  Doc takes Marty home, then travels 30 years into the future, “look me up when you get there.”
Saturday, October 26, 1985, 10:28 AM: Marty’s alarm goes off, “Back in Time” by Huey Lewis plays on the radio.  Marty thinks the past week was just a bad dream until he discovers new furniture and successful family members.  Lorraine is no longer an alcoholic, George is an author, David works at an office instead of Burger King, and Linda is a trendy socialite.  Biff has become the neutered family gopher, cleaning their cars and kowtowing to George’s commands.  He gives Marty the keys to his truck, the 4x4 he was ogling earlier with Jennifer.
10:30-ish: Marty reunites with Jennifer, “you’re acting like you haven’t seen me in a week,” “I haven’t.”  They kiss, at which point Doc returns from the future with a warning, “you’ve got to come back with me,” “where?” “Back to the Future TM.”  Where they’re going, they don’t need roads; the Delorean flies away, roll credits.
The first movie was never intended to have sequels.  It ended on a cliffhanger as a joke, “the adventures continue,” and it wasn’t until four years later that they decided to film Parts 2 and 3 back-to-back to round out the story.
In real time, Part 1 takes place over 1 day, 2 hours, 12 minutes
Friday, October 25, 1985 8:18 AM to Saturday, October 26, 1985, 10:30 AM
For Marty, it takes place over 8 days, 18 hours, 11 minutes
Friday, October 25, 1985, 8:18 AM to Saturday, October 26, 1985, 1:34 AM (17 hours, 16 minutes)
Saturday, November 5, 1955, 6:15 AM to Saturday, November 12, 1955, 10:04 PM (7 days, 15 hours, 49 minutes)
Saturday, October 26, 1985, 1:24 AM to Saturday, October 26, 1985, 10:30 AM (9 hours, 6 minutes)
Tumblr media
Part 2:
https://somethingusefulfromflorida.tumblr.com/post/189335688766/complete-timeline-of-back-to-the-future
Part 3:
https://somethingusefulfromflorida.tumblr.com/post/189337316891/complete-timeline-of-back-to-the-future
21 notes · View notes
rightsinexile · 5 years
Text
Publications
In the revised Returns Directive, the EU Commission aims to “speed up return procedures, prevent absconding and secondary movements, and increase the overall EU return rate, in full respect of fundamental rights.” This Statewatch article argues that the new proposal’s key aim is to restrict individual rights in the name of improving the functioning of the EU’s deportation system, and that there is no clear evidence supporting the claim that the proposal would lead to more effective returns of irregular migrants. In the second part, the article gives an overview of the key changes to the revised directive. - The revised Return Directive: A dangerous attempt to step up deportations by restricting rights. Jane Kilpatrick. Statewatch. September 2019.
Asylum Insight’s school resources provides facts on asylum seekers and refugee students and their teachers. This booklet includes a flowchart of the asylum process, an overview of refugees’ countries of origin, and a chronology of asylum policy in Australia. - Asylum seekers and refugees: The facts. Asylum Insight. 2019.
The organisation United Against Racism, located in Amsterdam, compiles a list of deaths of migrants and refugees who passed away between 1993 until 1 April 2019. It states that as of 1 April 36.570 undocumented deaths of migrants and refugees died because of restrictive EU immigration policies. The list states the date and location where the person was found dead, their name, age and gender and the cause of death. - List of 36.570 undocumented deaths of refugees and migrants due to the restrictive policies of “Fortress Europe.” United Against Racism. 1 April 2019.
The PHR report sets forth a series of violent and disproportionate attacks by Sudanese armed forces against protesters and hospital personnel since December 2018. The security forces prevented doctors from attending to the wounded and they have arrested and detained the hospital personnel. - Intimidation and persecution: Sudan’s attack on peaceful protesters and physicians. Rohini Haar. Physicians for Human Rights. 5 April 2019. 
This report by the human rights organisation Odhikar highlights the overall human rights situation in Bangladesh for the first quarter of 2019. The topics discussed include state repression, extrajudicial killings and torture, the death penalty, labour rights, political repression, public lynching, violations committed by Indian border security forces and violence against women. - Quarterly Human Rights Monitoring Report on Bangladesh. Odhikar. 11 June 2019.
This annual report on Children and Armed Conflict notes that the year 2018 was marked by the highest levels of children killed and maimed in armed conflict since the UN started monitoring the phenomenon. Overall, more than 24,000 violations were verified in 2018 in the 20 conflict situations. While the number for other violations decreased or remained relatively steady, more than 12,000 children were killed or maimed, mostly by cross-fire incidents, explosive remnants of war, improvised explosive devices, landmines and active combat actions. The report underscores the continued recruitment and use of more than 7,000 children in frontline fighting and the detention of children for actual and alleged association with armed groups in 2018. - Children and Armed Conflict. Office of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict. 20 June 2019.
PHR has collected extensive medical evidence of the human rights violations including targeted violence committed against Rohingya. This report supplements the 2018 Rohingya report and focuses on the underreported outcome of the 2017 violence: survivors who suffered physical impairments from their wounds that became long-term disabilities. - Shot while fleeing: Rohingya disabled by Myanmar authorities’ targeted violence. Laura Mills and Rupa Patel. Physicians for Human Rights. 25 June 2019.
In this document, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC) gives a short update on the legal changes to the Hungarian asylum system since July 2018. HHC argues that the legal amendments made by the Hungarian parliament drastically reduced the chances of asylum seekers receiving protection, as it leads to automatic rejection of almost all asylum claims. Numerous applicants risk imprisonment up to one year and the Hungarian government has developed a streamlined refoulement procedure. Push-backs are common and there is a limit of one person to be admitted to the transit zone and apply for asylum per day. - How legal changes resulted in blanket rejections, refoulement and systemic starvation in detention. Hungarian Helsinki Committee. 1 July 2019.
In January 2019, the Trump administration expanded its crackdown on asylum with a new practice: returning primarily Central American asylum seekers to several border towns in Mexico where they are expected to wait until their US asylum court proceedings conclude. Under a recent deal with Mexico, this practice may expand across the entire border. Human Rights Watch (HRW) found that the program, named the “Migrant Protection Protocols” (MPP) by the US government has thus far had serious human rights consequences for returned asylum seekers. It found that the returns program is expelling asylum seekers to ill-prepared, dangerous Mexican border cities where they face high if not insurmountable barriers to receiving due process on their asylum claims. Among those asylum seekers HRW interviewed, several reported attacks on themselves or others in the town, including violent assaults, sexual violence, and kidnapping. - “We can’t help you here.” US returns of asylum seekers to Mexico. Human Rights Watch. 2 July 2019.
This dissertation focuses on Rohingya youth and their process to adulthood and forming identity in Bangladesh. The uncertainty around Rohingya identity raises several questions: How does the experience of displacement and ‘refugee-ness’ in Bangladesh shape identity among Rohingya people, particularly among the youth and young adults? And in what ways do they retain their Rohingya identity in the context of their non-citizen status in Bangladesh? The findings of the ethnographic research show that due to living in oppressive conditions, uncertainty, and the lack of an appropriate social environment, Rohingya people struggle with forming their identity. - Rohingyas in Bangladesh: Owning Rohingya identity in disowning spaces. Sultana Ishrat Zakia. 2 July 2019. 
In order to provide full understanding and recognition of the genocidal crimes committed by ISIS against the Yazidi community of Sinjar, LSE established a demographic documentation of the victims of the attack in the village of Kocho. A list of victims gathered by Yazidi enumerators was compared and validated with a second list of victims compiled by a Yazidi community leader who survived the attack. A dual system estimation was applied to determine the likely number of victims who remained uncounted. The Yazidi Victims Demographic Documentation Project aims to play a significant role in achieving accountability for the crimes ISIS has committed against the Yazidis. - Counting mass atrocity: A demographic documentation of ISIS’s attack on the Yazidi village of Kocho. Valeria Cetorelli and Sareta Ashraph. LSE Middle East Centre. 5 July 2019.
This report aims to map the cooperation between Egypt and EU member states in migration and border management. It furthermore analyses the impact this cooperation has on the rights of migrants and refugees in Egypt. The report notes that EU-Egypt relations have intensified since 2016 and that EU member states such as Italy and Germany continue to engage in bilateral cooperation with Egypt. Furthermore, the report argues that cooperation negatively impacts the human rights of migrants and Egyptians themselves, as deportations of Egyptians from the EU have increased while people continue to face authoritarianism in Egypt. - EU-Egypt migration cooperation: At the expense of human rights. Euromed Rights. 15 July 2019.
The Italian association of immigration lawyers (ASGI) engaged in a survey and field research in Niamey, Niger, in November 2018. The in-depth study aims to analyse the Emergency Transit Mechanism (ETM), a system that was invented to relocate migrants previously evacuated from Libya to Niger, assess their applications and select applicants to resettle in third states. The report examines whether the ETM programme and resettlement are suitable instruments to maintain a balance between border checkpoints management and ensuring the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. Specifically, it questions whether such mechanisms are suitable for granting the right of asylum to people who are unable to reach Europe to seek international protection. - The “Emergency Transit Mechanism” programme and the resettlement from the Niger: Legal analysis, current and future concerns. Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione (ASGI). 17 July 2019.
In 2017 President Emmanuel Macron said France would resettle 10.000 refugees by the end of 2019. IFRI research focuses on the local integration of resettled refugees in small-sized communities in France. The author has sought to grasp the local process of the reception of resettled refugees and their integration in small communities through interviews with local actors and field visits. - Another story from the “Refugee Crisis”: Resettlement in small towns and rural areas in France. Matthieu Tardis. Institut Francais des Relations Internationales. 26 July 2019.
In July 2019 US Attorney General WIlliam Barr issued a precedential decision, Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 581, a case in which the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) represented L-E-A-, a Mexican citizen, in his claim for asylum in immigration court. CLINIC’s practice pointer is intended to quickly provide legal practitioners with information on how to respond to L-E-A-. It outlines the flaws in the AG’s reasoning and suggests strategies for those with family-based asylum cases before asylum officers and immigration judges. - Practice Pointer: Matter of L-E-A-. Catholic Legal Immigration Network. 29 July 2019.
This article responds to dual calls for researching and theorising everyday social phenomena in postcolonial studies, on the one hand, and serious engagement with the postcolonial within the discipline of sociology, on the other. It focuses on the everyday lives of asylum seekers living on asylum seeker welfare support in the UK. Asylum seekers offer a case study for exploring the postcolonial everyday because they live in poverty and consequently experience daily harm at the hands of the state, despite the UK fulfilling its obligations under human rights law. - Necropolitics and the slow violence of the everyday: Asylum seeker welfare in the postcolonial present. Lucy Mayblin, Mustafa Wake, Mohsen Kazemi. Sociology. July 2019.
Amnesty International reports on the unlawful targeting of human rights defenders by US authorities at the US-Mexico border. This campaign includes intimidation, threats, harassment and criminal investigations, including smuggling charges, against people defending human rights of migrants and asylum seekers. The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) subjected these human rights defenders to legal harassment such as warrantless and unreasonable searches, prolonged interrogations, detention and travel restrictions. Also, DHS has collaborated with the Mexican authorities in surveillance operations and criminal investigations. - Saving lives is not a crime: Politically motivated legal harassment against migrant human rights defenders by the sea. Amnesty International. July 2019.
In this policy note the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) analyses the challenges that EU member states encounter in enforcing return decisions. ECRE identified stricter rules for return have been introduced in the 2018 Recast Return directive, raising concerns about its impact on fundamental rights of returnees, such as the increase of (prolonged) detention of potential returnees. By rushing policy change after policy change with an ever more restrictive focus, the EU Members States are in danger of inflicting considerable harm on third-country individuals. - Return policy: Desperately seeking evidence and balance. ECRE’s assessment of latest developments in EU policy and law of returns. ECRE. July 2019. 
On 19 June 2019 the Austrian Parliament adopted a law establishing a Federal Agency for Supervision and Support Services which will be in charge inter alia of (i) providing reception conditions, (ii) providing legal assistance to asylum seekers; (iii) providing assistance for return, (iv) providing human rights observers to monitor deportations; and (v) providing interpreters and translators during the asylum procedure. In this legal note, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) provides its analysis of the main changes introduced by the law and their impact on the provision of legal assistance to asylum applicants both at first and second instance. The overall restrictive approach to free legal assistance pursued by the new law, the exclusion of welfare organisations and external service providers in the provision of legal assistance is of particular concern. - Reforming legal assistance in Austria: An end to independent provision? ECRE's call for withdrawal of measures that severely restrict access to independent legal assistance. ECRE. July 2019. 
Nubsud Human Rights Monitors Organisation (NHRMO) has been monitoring human rights violations committed against the civilian population in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, Sudan, since the current conflict began in 2011. Human rights update April-June covers the attacks perpetrated by the Sudan Armed Forces and allied militia in the regions Delami Country and Blue Nile. - NHRMO. Civilians of South Kordofan and Blue Nile continue to face attacks. NHRMO. 4 August 2019.
Many Eritreans have spent their entire working lives in indefinite national service. Since 2003 the Eritrean government has forced thousands of young people to undergo military training before they complete secondary school. This report examines how national service violates young people’s rights and restricts their access to quality secondary education. - “They are making us into slaves, not educating us.” How indefinite conscription restricts young people’s rights, access to education in Eritrea. Human Rights Watch. 8 August 2019.
Venezuela’s crisis has triggered mass migration and more than 3.4 million Venezuelans have fled. The authors undertook an assessment mission to Cúcuta, in the Colombian state of North Santander, and to Bôa Vista and Pacaraima, in the state of Roraima, Brazil. Interviews were conducted with key informants, including health providers and organizations engaged in the humanitarian response. Surveillance data shows the increase of infectious diseases, as well as adverse maternal and neonatal health outcomes, among Venezuelans in North Santander and Roraima. - Venezuelan migration and the border health crisis in Colombia and Brazil. Shannon Doocy, Kathleen R. Page, Fernando de la Hoz, Paul Spiegel, Chris Beyrer. Journal on Migration and Human Security. 12 August 2019.
Commissioned by UNHCR, the Asylum Research Center maps the current security situation in three eastern Congolese regions — North Kivu, South Kivu and Ituri — from January 2018 until August 2019. The report includes relevant country information on the security, humanitarian and human rights situation, and identifies issues relevant to refugee status determination. The report provides an overview of the various armed groups in the region and it highlights the conflict-related sexual violence and the violence committed against children, including the recruitment and use of child soldiers. Lastly, it covers the current Ebola crisis and the situation of internally displaced persons in eastern Congo. - Democratic Republic of Congo: The situation in North Kivu, South Kivu and Ituri. Asylum Research Center. August 2019.
In this article the authors examine a novel set of data from migrant shelters’ qualitative interviews with migrants and with staff and advocates working at the Mexico-Guatemala border region, as well as complaints of abuses committed along migrants’ journeys — informally filed by migrants. The article aims to document and analyze the nature, location, and perpetrators of these alleged abuses, using a framework of “compassionate repression” (Fassin 2012) to examine the obstacles that migrants encounter in denouncing abuses and seeking protection. While humanitarian visas can provide necessary protection for abuses committed in Mexico, they are limited by their temporary nature, by being nested within a migration system that prioritizes migrant removal.The paradox between humanitarian concerns and repressive migration governance in a context of high impunity shapes institutional and practical obstacles to reporting crimes, receiving visas, and accessing justice. In this context, a variety of actors recognize that they can exploit and profit from migrants’ lack of mobility, legal vulnerability, and uncertain access to protection. This could lead to a commodification of access to humanitarian protection along the route. - Paradoxes of protection: Compassionate repression at the Mexico-Guatemala border. Rebecca Galemba, Katie Dingeman, Kaelyn deVries, Yvette Servin. August 2019. 
The Congo Research Group (CRG) is an independent, non-profit research project dedicated to understanding the violence and the different aspects of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The CRG aims to uncover and verify violence at the local level and to correct underreporting, employing local Congolese researchers who report and verify incidents. Together with Human Rights Watch, CRG started the Kivu Security Tracker (KST) project to map violent incidents and actors in order to better understand the intensity of local violence. Between June 2017 and June 2019, the KST project documented 3.015 violent incidents, and eastern Congo continues to see levels of violence as high as some of the (other) most violent places in the world. - Congo, forgotten: The numbers behind Africa’s longest humanitarian crisis. Congo Research Group, New York University. August 2019.
1 note · View note
microsoftedgy69 · 5 years
Text
TMI Thursday.
Here’s entirely too much information:
Guano (from Spanish guano, from Quechua: wanu) is the accumulated excrement of seabirds and bats. As a manure, guano is a highly effective fertilizer due to its exceptionally high content of nitrogen, phosphate and potassium: nutrients essential for plant growth. Guano was also, to a lesser extent, sought for the production of gunpowder and other explosive materials. The 19th-century guano trade played a pivotal role in the development of modern input-intensive farming, but its demand began to decline after the discovery of the Haber-Bosch process of nitrogen fixing led to the production of synthetic fertilizers. The demand for guano spurred the human colonization of remote bird islands in many parts of the world. During the 20th century, guano-producing birds became an important target of conservation programs and influenced the development of environmental consciousness. Today, guano is increasingly sought after by organic farmers.[1]
Contents
1Composition
2History
3Sourcing
4Properties
5In popular culture
6See also
7References
8Further reading
9External links
8.1Africa
8.2Chile
8.3Peru
8.4Documents
Composition[edit]
Paul Szpak has co-authored several journal articles claiming that seabird guano consists of nitrogen-rich ammonium nitrate and urate, phosphates, as well as some earth salts and impurities, and that unleached guano from favored locales, such as the Chincha Islandsoff the coast of Peru, typically contains 8 to 16 percent nitrogen (the majority of which is uric acid), 8 to 12 percent equivalent phosphoric acid, and 2 to 3 percent equivalent potash.[2][3]
However, The Association of American Plant Food Control Officers (AAPFCO) defines Seabird guano as the hardened excrement from marine birds, which contains no organic matter or nitrogen and is a source of phosphates P2O5: "P- Hydroxylapatite - is a naturally-formed phosphate rock mineral with the formula Ca5(PO4)3(OH). The Fluorine content is less than 1%."[4]
Bat guano is fecal excrement from bats. Commercially harvested bat guano is used as an organic fertilizer.[5][6] All commercially sold bat guano is derived from insect-eating bats.[7]A study was done that demonstrated that, for fruit bats and insect bats, the composition of their guano was largely the same, and differed mainly based on their diet.[8]
History[edit]
Chincha Islands where guano was found in abundance. Mining was done on site and ships transported it to Europe.
Mining guano in the
Chincha Islands
off the central coast of
Peru
c. 1860.
Advertisement for guano, 1884
The word "guano" originates from the Andean indigenous language Quechua, which refers to any form of dung used as an agricultural fertilizer. Archaeological evidence suggests that Andean people have collected guano from small islands and points located off the desert coast of Peru for use as a soil amendment for well over 1,500 years. Spanish colonial documents suggest that the rulers of the Inca Empire assigned great value to guano, restricted access to it, and punished any disturbance of the birds with death. The Guanay cormorant has historically been the most abundant and important producer of guano. Other important guano producing species off the coast of Peru are the Peruvian pelican and the Peruvian booby.[1][3]
In November 1802, Alexander von Humboldt first encountered guano and began investigating its fertilizing properties at Callao in Peru, and his subsequent writings on this topic made the subject well known in Europe. During the guano boom of the nineteenth century, the vast majority of seabird guano was harvested from Peruvian guano islands, but large quantities were also exported from the Caribbean, atolls in the Central Pacific, and islands off the coast of Namibia, Oman, Patagonia, and Baja California. At that time, massive deposits of guano existed on some islands, in some cases more than 50 m deep.[9] In this context the United States passed the Guano Islands Act in 1856, which gave U.S. citizens discovering a source of guano on an unclaimed island exclusive rights to the deposits. Nine of these islands are still officially U.S. territories.[10] Control over guano played a central role in the Chincha Islands War (1864–1866) between Spain and a Peruvian-Chilean alliance. Indentured workers from China played an important role in guano harvest. The first group of 79 Chinese workers arrived in Peru in 1849; by the time that trade ended a quarter of a century later, over 100,000 of their fellow countrymen had been imported. There is no documentary evidence that enslaved Pacific Islanders participated in guano mining.[11] Between 1847 and 1873, there was a significant increase in Peruvian guano exports, and the revenue from this momentarily ended the fiscal necessity of the colonial head tax.[12]
After 1870, the use of Peruvian guano as a fertilizer was eclipsed by saltpeter in the form of caliche extraction from the interior of the Atacama Desert, not far from the guano areas. During the War of the Pacific (1879–1883) Chile seized much of the guano as well as Peru's nitrate-producing area, enabling its national treasury to grow by 900% between 1879 and 1902 thanks to taxes coming from the newly acquired lands.[13] Contrary to popular belief, seabird guano does not have high concentrations of nitrates, and was never important to the production of explosives; bat and cave-bird deposits have been processed to produce gunpowder, however. High-grade rock phosphate deposits are derived from the remobilization of phosphate from bird guano into underlying rocks such as limestone.[14] In 1990 a group of French researchers, from isotope studies, proposed a marine sedimentation origin for some high-grade phosphate deposits on Nauru.[15][16]
Since 1909, when the Peruvian government took over guano extraction for use by Peru farmers, the industry has relied on production by living populations of marine birds. U.S. ornithologists Robert Cushman Murphy and William Vogt promoted the Peruvian industry internationally as a supreme example of wildlife conservation, while also drawing attention to its vulnerability to the El Niño phenomenon. South Africa independently developed its own guano industry based on sustained-yield production from marine birds during this period, as well. Both industries eventually collapsed due to pressure from overfishing.[1]The importance of guano deposits to agriculture elsewhere in the world faded after 1909 when Fritz Haber developed the Haber-Bosch process of industrial nitrogen fixation, which today generates the ammonia-based fertilizer responsible for sustaining an estimated one-third of the Earth's population.[17]
DNA testing has suggested that new potato varieties imported alongside Peruvian seabird guano in 1842 brought a virulent strain of potato blight that began the Irish Potato Famine.[18][19]
Sourcing[edit]
A
herring gull
(
Larus argentatus
) excreting waste near
Île-de-Bréhat
.
The ideal type of guano is found in exceptionally dry climates, as rainwater volatilizes and leaches nitrogen-containing ammonia from guano. In order to support large colonies of marine birds and the fish they feed on, these islands must be adjacent to regions of intense marine upwelling, such as those along the eastern boundaries of the Pacific and South Atlantic Oceans.[9]
Bat guano is usually mined in caves and this mining is associated with a corresponding loss of troglobytic biota and diminishing of biodiversity. Guano deposits support a great variety of cave-adapted invertebrates, that rely on bat feces as their sole source of nutrition. In addition to the biological component, deep guano deposits from birds and bats contain local paleoclimatic records and evidence of other environmental changes in strata that have built up over thousands of years, which are unrecoverable once disturbed.[20]However, when done with caution, extraction of guano can be done alongside marine bird colonies without causing them significant harm.[21][22]
Post-depositional decomposition and ammonia volatilization of penguin guano also plays an important role in the evolution of ornithogenic sediments in the cold and arid environment of Antarctica (McMurdo Sound of the Ross Sea region, East Antarctica).[23]
Properties[edit]
In agriculture and gardening guano has a number of uses, including as: soil builder, lawn treatments, fungicide (when fed to plants through the leaves), nematicide (decomposing microbes help control nematodes), and as composting activator (nutrients and microbes speed up decomposition).[24]
High in nitrogen, guano was also refined in the early 20th century into a precursor to explosives. This caused guano islands to be of strategic significance before the First World War.
In popular culture[edit]
"Guano's historical significance was as much cultural as it was ecological and economic."[25] References to guano in popular culture are an important sign of this cultural influence, especially regarding the ongoing relationship between guano and colonialism. In his 1845 poem "Guanosong", Joseph Victor von Scheffel used a humorous verse to take a position in the then-popular polemic against Hegel's Naturphilosophie. The poem starts with an allusion to Heinrich Heine's Lorelei and may be sung to the same tune.[26] The poem ends however with the blunt statement of a Swabian rapeseed farmer from Böblingen who praises the seagulls of Peru as providing better manure even than his fellow countryman Hegel. This refuted the widespread Enlightenment belief that nature in the New World was inferior to the Old World. The poem has been translated by, among others, Charles Godfrey Leland.[27]
In Joseph Conrad's 1900 novel Lord Jim the characters Chester and Captain Robinson attempt to recruit the eponymous lead character for an expedition harvesting guano.
The setting of Ian Fleming's 1958 installation in the James Bond series Dr. No is a Caribbean guano island, and the villain dies at the end buried in guano.
In Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film Dr. Strangelove, Colonel "Bat" Guano (Keenan Wynn) leads an attack on the airbase responsible for sending a nuclear attack order to bomb the Soviet Union.
The 1994 film Men of War centers on a band of mercenaries who are hired by an investment firm to seize a tropical island for its extensive guano deposits.
In the 1995 film Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls, Jim Carrey's character attempts to save an African tribe from being dispossessed of a fortune in bat guano.
Hungarian painter Judit Reigl had a series of paintings between 1958-1964. She used to protect the floor of her atelier with old and ruined canvasses. When she moved out, she discovered that over these years the paintings developed an interesting surface, and she carved her "Guano painting" from these.
5 notes · View notes
beinglibertarian · 5 years
Text
No, Twitter Should Not Be Nationalized
The Twitter Conservatives are channelling their inner central planner by their call for tighter regulation, or even nationalization of their primary social network. Actor cum conservative commentator James Woods Tweeted a link to an article reporting on radio host Jesse Kelly’s reinstatement to the platform with the caption, “When will Congress regulate these jokers?” He was then one-upped by another blue checkmark, Paul Shelter, who replied, “nationalize, don’t regulate.” Then, Will Chamberlain and Michael Malice somehow got involved, and the former posted a video, with the hope of persuading Malice, with his arguments in favor of nationalizing Twitter.
The video is good-natured and friendly towards Malice and others who disagree. He, like many conservatives, is frustrated with Twitter’s banning policy, which seems to discriminate against conservative viewpoints. He sees Twitter, headed by avowed liberal CEO Jack Dorsey, as being transformed into a left-wing propaganda platform. He says the arbitrariness of his censorship policy has been a tool for ideologues to silence opposition.
Those who identify with the right-wing are being suspended or banned for ambiguous reasons. In the case of the previously cited Jesse Kelly, his account was taken down for “repeat violation of Twitter rules,” without warning, or specifics on the offending content. He was just given back his account without explanation. Others who have been permabanned may or may not have violated the Terms of Service, but it’s enforced willy-nilly. Left-wing Tweeters with just as inflammatory content do not receive the same treatment.
Even though I am not a conservative, I do not agree with Twitter’s banning policy. It should be clearer and enforced more consistently. I’m even prepared to say that Jack Dorsey and the other Twitter heads have a political angle with enforcement. However, there is firstly nothing wrong with this, especially from a libertarian point of view, and regardless, the solution to censorship is not nationalization or even regulation of Twitter.
The issue with Twitter
Wherein I attempt to persuade @michaelmalice to join the #NationalizeTwitter movement https://t.co/3rLESrKdOU
— Will Chamberlain
Tumblr media
(@willchamberlain) November 28, 2018
The status quo is, says Chamberlain, “Our speech is being regulated by 20 liberals in a room in San Francisco.” The first response one might give is that being banned from Twitter doesn’t mean one cannot speak on other platforms, which is true, Chamberlain admits. But examples such as Milo Yiannopoulos show us that being removed from Twitter, the dominant discussion driver represents a significant diminishing of your outreach, and can lead to a cascade of banning on other platforms. The result is a “monopoly” of liberal orthodoxy.
Despite that, I would say, that’s just how the cookie crumbles. Firstly, if those platforms didn’t aggress against anyone in their removal of users, there’s nothing legally wrong occurring. Second, it represents society’s rejection of views being propagated with their facilitation. Twitter does not have an obligation to host views they disagree with, or even “facts they’re afraid of,” if the conservatives insist, at their own expense. You and I may not like the fact that Milo is banned almost everywhere, but we are not prevented from consuming his output. He has simply lost in the battle of ideas.
Above all, nobody has the right to a platform. That would represent a call to someone else’s labor on your behalf. Twitter didn’t come from the ether – it came from the foresight, ingenuity, and investment of entrepreneurs. Imagine if Twitter had been invented by a conservative instead, and its main purpose was to be a platform for conservatives to interact peer-to-peer. Then when it became popular, liberals complained that they were being marginalized, and called for the platform to be nationalized. Conservatives could rightly tell them where to stick it.
Is Twitter a monopoly? Chamberlain points out that Twitter does not make a profit, yet is valued at over $20 billion on the stock market. Investors value Twitter over profit-making institutions such as The New York Times because of its potential monopolizing influence. Profit only matters if there is competition, and there doesn’t seem to be any. The internet economy produces a winner-takes-all effect where one platform seems to represent full-spectrum dominance.
Yet this does not represent a literal monopoly. A monopoly is not just where there is no competition. It is when there cannot be any competition. There have been plenty of corporations and brands in the recent past who seemed to have had an unstoppable hold on their niche, yet are now forgotten. The obvious examples being Nokia and MySpace. It’s not obvious that Twitter will enjoy dominance forever, as they experience stock falls. They might find that it benefits them more, in the long run, to be more accommodating of opposing views. Provided the state is not involved, it cannot be a true monopoly.
The problem with State-run institutions
Chamberlain believes that a state-run Twitter would be better for free speech, even admitting that you cannot guarantee that your preferred party is in power at the time. He trusts in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution to protect the right of dissenters to have their say. Citing journalist’s Jim Acosta’s reinstatement to Presidential press conferences through a court order, he argues that state-run institutions are more accountable when it comes to constitutionally protected rights.
This is a naive trust in the efficacy of government to protect rights. There are many ways that the government makes a mockery of the 1st amendment that doesn’t involve direct censorship. Even the current mainstream news bloc is not truly private – being stuck to the hip of government. You don’t need to censor anybody if you shape the terms of the debate.
Even in the case of Presidential press conferences, not everybody is allowed in. The realities of space and time prohibit everyone in the country with a press hat shoving a microphone in the President’s face. The parameters for letting people in necessarily limit the bounds of debate – the three by five card of allowable opinion.
This form of soft-censorship is apparent in the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation). Defenders of the BBC claim that it is not a state broadcaster in the sense that it is funded by a source separate from taxation, and is separate from the government. It’s true too that it does not explicitly put forward an agenda. The BBC agenda is more about streamlining the bounds of debate. You can disagree vociferously, providing it is within that impossibly small Overton window it presents.
As an example of this in action, check out this clip of a BBC Newsnight interview with Glen Greenwald around the time of the “Trump memo” in early 2017:
youtube
The presenter is happy to have him on, but as soon as Greenwald begins to question the validity of the CIA, she transforms from the dispassionate journalist to the ideological crusader. She is appalled by Greenwald’s assertion, and repeats it back in a tone that suggests, “It’s hard to believe anybody would ever dream of having this opinion.” It’s not censorship, but shame.
This is one example of how state broadcasters shape the terms of the debate without actual censorship. It’s true, Britain does not have the same constitutional protection for freedom of speech that the United States does, but regardless, what the BBC does is not directly denying a platform to anyone, or censoring at all. It’s a sleight of hand that the US government would be just as capable of doing if Twitter was nationalized.
They could do this via filtering – only showing “appropriate and relevant” content at the top of the feed. They could have keyword filtering. In other words, the many means in which Twitter soft-censors now will be available to the government too. It’s irrelevant if nobody is banned if nobody can see their content in the first place.
Moreover, nationalization of media is a totalitarian option more becoming of communist hyper states than those that supposedly champion individual freedom and a free press. No one seriously denies that RT, despite its occasional good journalism, is primarily designed to be a defender of the Russian regime. It is not a means to protect the rights of the Russian people. Suggesting the US Twitter would be anything else other than The Ministry of Truth, like every other state broadcaster, is ungrounded speculation.
International quagmires
There are also severe practical problems that prevent Twitter from being nationalized. Twitter is an international platform. Even though the US is the biggest Twitter user, Japan comes close, followed by the United Kingdom, and Saudi Arabia. Twitter is also known for hosting content put out by extremist political groups such as The Islamic State. The nationalization of Twitter would necessarily produce a conflict of interest as the US might be obligated to host content by opponents of the West.
The other option would be that the US would only be obligated to host opinions of American citizens, as they are the only ones whose speech is protected by the constitution. The government could then censor content from other countries as it saw fit. That’s all fine until international content legitimately challenges the US government. Content that might be of interest to the American people could reasonably be censored under the excuse of protecting national security.
No, it is better that Twitter is politically independent. Although not perfect, and some views are bound to be marginalized, the alternative presents more serious moral hazards.
The problem is State power
Will Chamberlain does highlight a real problem with the relationship between social media and government. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Twitter is a dominant platform with a liberal political agenda, it is an issue that those persuaded by that agenda will then go to lobby government to change public policy. But that is a problem with state power, not with Twitter per se. You could argue for nationalization of just about anything, as just about any institution can influence government.
It is inherently nonsensical to combat state control with more state control. Nationalising Twitter only increases the potential spoils of political power. There will be even more incentive for censorship and control as any slight change in tone could produce serious policy repercussions.  It will create more conflict as opinion will only be more influential in our lives.
Let’s take for example the almost perennial issue of prayer in schools. The only reason why we still argue about this is that of the inherent zero-sum-game that comes from government coercion. It wouldn’t be necessary to vociferously debate about the merits of prayer in school if people were free to choose schools based on their own will. As it stands, education is compulsory, so no matter who wins, someone has to lose. In a free society, there are schools with prayer and schools without. Parents may choose either.
So too with the media, we must err on the side of freedom. Nationalization is inherently a violation of liberty.
The post No, Twitter Should Not Be Nationalized appeared first on Being Libertarian.
from WordPress https://ift.tt/2El0rS7 via IFTTT
9 notes · View notes
buendomingo-blog · 5 years
Text
Answered prayers
A new era has dawned on Gov. Celestino Gallares Memorial Hospital (GCGMH) highlighted by: a newly constructed modern Hemo-Dialysis Center comparable to those of Cebu and Manila, a new high rise building, new hospital equipment, continuing construction of the Pharmacy, Blood Bank, Rehabilitation Center, Emergency facility and the newly built Malasakit Center. Medical services has greatly improved breaking the stigma that government service equates poor service. Behind all these developments is a type of aggressive but proactive management implemented by the new Medical Center Chief in the person of Dr. Mutya Kismet T. Macuno. Truly, Dr. Macuno is God sent especially for us dialysis patients who have experienced the worst condition before. The old Hemo-Dialysis Unit (HDU) was located in a small room with ten not well known brand of dialysis machines placed side by side very near each other. Admitted patients have dialysis together with the regular outpatients such that risk of infection or contamination is high. The room has poor ventilation and noisy with not so disciplined HDU Staff. The old HDU is right beside a huge electric generator creating a fire hazard in case of power overload. It is also beside the hospital’s morgue. Dialysis patients and their watchers in the waiting area are used to seeing dead patients in stretcher wheeled on the dirty hallway.
 In contrast to the old HDU, the new HDU started operation in July, 2018 is located in front of the hospital which is newly painted with appropriate combination of suiting colors, it has 15 brand new German made Fresenius dialysis machines placed not so close to each other, very clean comfort room, well lighted and with sufficient number of big split-type air-conditioners, state of the art water filtration facility, readily available oxygen outlets on the wall per patient and most of all; it has newly trained dialysis staff with two doctors on an eight hour shift. We are also very blessed because we do not have to pay for our dialysis. We are covered by 90 dialysis sessions per year under PHILHEALTH on a no balance billing scheme. Upon exhaustion of our PHILHEALTH benefits our dialysis expenses are automatically charged to the PDAF and Medical Assistance Fund (MAF) provided by the DOH, Governor and Congressmen of Bohol. Our monthly laboratory tests expenses are also charged to the PDAP/MAF. Depending on funds availability, part of our maintenance medicines expenses are also charged to the MAF.
   As a gesture of gratitude, I have written a letter (copy printed below) to Dr. Macuno for all that she has done for us dialysis patients and to all the patients of GCGMH:
July 11, 2018
Dr. Mutya Kismet T. Macuno MD FPPS, FPSNbM, MDM
Medical Center Chief II
GCGMH, Tagbilaran City
Dear Madam:
After so many years of longing for a new relocation site of our old HDU, finally our dreams are fulfilled by an angel who knows what we feel and what we need and that is you. In behalf of the Bohol Association of Hemo-Dialysis Patients and Watchers (BOASHEPAWA) we would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to you for everything that you have done for us. You are truly a child of God who knows how to take care of His people.
Having a new site for the HDU is one of the major objectives of our association. I have written Dr. Arcay some letters regarding this but he seemed to be having difficulty accomplishing our request then. For your information, our other objectives that we have fulfilled are the following:
1.      Our 2nd Board Resolution was about the putting up of the provincial office of the Phillipine Charity Sweepstake Office (PCSO); and thru the intervention of Gov. Chatto our request was granted;
2.      Our next request was on the extension of PHILHEALTH’s 45 dialysis sessions per year to 90 sessions per year. The granting of our request was facilitated by Cong. Relampagos thru his relative who is a ranking officer of PHILHEALTH;
3.      Then, the request to Sec. Butch Abad on financial assistance coming from taxes from vice such as cigarette, liquor and gambling thru Cong. Relampagos. This could be the result of funds coming from Congressmen and the Medical Assistance Fund; and,
4.      Also, our association was able to give financial assistance to the family of our members who died (P1,000.00 pesos for directors / officers and P500.00 pesos for regular members).
Our current objective is to have a gathering probably on a beach to know more of each other, exchange experiences and insights about dialysis; and have an election afterwards.
You have done so much for us, but if you could extend an accreditation of our association in the future or refer a forum on dialysis, then, we could not ask for more.
Thank you very much and regards.
Very truly yours,
SIGNED:
BUEN T. DOMINGO
Chairman, BOASHEPAWA
    When I became a regular dialysis patient of GCGMH in October, 2011, I saw the need of putting up an association of dialysis patients with a legal personality (registered with the SEC) for us to be able to express our needs, privileges / rights and to legally solicit financial assistance for our dialysis needs. Also, I thought that it would not be difficult for me to do the organizing since I was an Area Development Officer of the UCPB-CIIF Finance and Development Corporation and I have experience in Community Development by organizing Small Coconut Farmers Organizations. I immediately organized a core group despite some negative feedback by the patients and nurses who were opposed to an association of dialysis patients (maybe they were “burned” by their previous experiences in organizations). I prepared the basic requirements and went to the provincial office of the SEC. I lost count of the number of times I went back to the office of SEC in Bohol to comply with the additional requirements or amendments in our documents since the SEC is very meticulous in screening applicant organization for registration. I have to go to the National Office of SEC in Manila to personally submit our registration documents to facilitate its approval despite my physical condition. I have water in my lungs due to previous Pneumonia infection and high blood pressure. I was gasping for air with my wife when we were crossing the overpass in Ortigas. At last on May 9, 2013, our association of dialysis patients and watchers was registered with the SEC with Registration Number: CN 201326623.
    Having dialysis before is very difficult since there was no provincial office of the PCSO. The patients themselves or their close relatives have to go to the National Office of PCSO in Manila just to get a 20 thousand pesos per three months financial assistance for the cost of dialysis. The 45 dialysis sessions per year of PHILHEALTH before was not enough to cover our dialysis cost for a year. They have to ride a ship to go to Manila and wait for many hours in a long line at the PCSO office only to get a net of 16 thousand pesos not considering the health risk of the patients. So we are grateful when our request for the putting up of the provincial office of the PCSO was granted. Also, we have to individually solicit funds from politicians and NGOs. During the period from November to December, many of the indigent patients have to undergo dialysis for once a week only instead of the regular twice a week due to lack of funds.
    We learned that having an association is effective in lobbying for our dialysis needs, so we passed a Board Resolution requesting the PHILHEALTH to extend its assistance of 45 dialysis sessions per year to 90 dialysis sessions per year. We provided copies of our request to Congressmen and post it in the social media joining other dialysis patients associations with the same request. At last, our plea was considered by PHILHEALTH and the 90 dialysis sessions per year was finally approved.  
    We also saw the opportunity of getting financial assistance from the government through the Sin Taxes (taxes obtained from cigarettes, alcohol and gambling), so we passed a Board Resolution requesting the then Budget Secretary, Butch Abad, to allot some funds for dialysis assistance. We wrote the Congressmen of Bohol to do the same from their Priority Development Fund or PDAF.
We are very grateful, when the Congressmen started allocating funds directly to the GCGMH and the DOH has implemented their Medical Assistance Program for the hospital. From then on and with Dr. Macuno at the helm as Chief of the Hospital, we do not have a problem regarding our dialysis needs.
    Many thanks for our prayers that have been heard. Merry Christmas and a happy prosperous New Year to everyone.
1 note · View note
mj-blog-spot · 2 years
Text
Requisites of Marriage (Article 26)
All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country except those prohibited under articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is a validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (As amended by E.O. No. 227)
Rules on foreign marriages of Filipinos
If a marriage is celebrated between Filipino citizens in a foreign country and valid there as such, generally, it is valid in the Philippines. The exception to the rule is that when marriage between Filipinos abroad is bigamous the same is void even if valid where it was celebrated because what determines their legal capacity is Philippine law.
Strict application of rule 26
The rule as contemplated by the framers of the family code is that, the marriage must be a mixed marriage, between a foreigner and a Filipino in order that article 6 paragraph 2 may apply and that it must have been mixed from the very beginning. If it was mixed after its celebration, the law does not apply.
It is said that while public policy and our concept of morality abhor or hate absolute divorce, because of nationality principle adhered under article 15 of the civil code, nonetheless, the absolute divorce obtained abroad may be recognized in the Philippines provided it is valid according to his national law.
Effect if Filipino obtains divorce against foreigner spouse
The effects of foreign divorce are now recognized in the Philippines but subject to certain condition. When the foreigner divorced the Filipina, the marital relationship was severed.
Extent of the petition under Article 26 paragraph 2 of the Family Code
An alien’s legal capacity to contract is evidenced by a certificate issued by his or her respective diplomatic and consular officials, which he or she must present to secure a marriage license. The Filipino spouse who seeks to remarry, however, must still resort to a judicial action for a declaration of authority to remarry.
Doctrine of lex loci celebrationis "the law of the land where the marriage was celebrated"
Bayot vs. CA
G.R. No. 155635 November 7, 2008
FACTS:
Rebecca Macapugay Bayot was an American citizen and born in Agoa, Guam, USA. She married Vicente Bayot at Greenhills, Mandaluyong on April 20, 1979. On November 27,1982, Rebecca gave birth to a daughter named Alix at San Francisco, California. However, as the marriage turned sour, Rebecca initiated a divorce on 1996 in Dominican Republic. The latter ordered the dissolution of marriage and remarriage after competing the legal requirements. However, there must be a joint custody and guardianship to Alix, and the conjugal property, particularly the real properties located only in Manila that they acquired during their marriage be settled.
However, Rebecca stated under oath on May 28, 1996 that she is an American citizen and she is carrying a child not of Vicente. Rebecca again filed another petition in Manila on March 2001 for absolute nullity of marriage on the ground of dissolution of partnership gain, monthly support for their daughter and that Vicente is psychological incapacitated.
Vicente averred and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of cause and action and filed a case of adultery and perjury against Rebecca. Rebecca, on the contrary, charged Vicente with bigamy and concubinage.
On the other note, Rebecca became a recognized Filipino citizen on 2000. ISSUE:
Whether or not the divorce is valid?
HELD:
1) No serious dispute that at the time of divorce to Vicente, Rebecca was an American citizen and still remains to be one. Evidences: a) she was born in USA and jus soli is followed in American territory in granting American citizenship; b) she was and may still be an American passport holder; c) in marriage certificate, birth certificate of Alix and divorce decree in Dominican Republic, it was declared that she is an American
2) VALID. Rebecca was bound by the national laws of USA where divorce was valid. Their property relations were also properly adjudicated through their Agreement on 1996. Foreign divorce can be recognized in the Philippines provided that the divorce decree is fact and valid under the national law of the alien spouse. The reckoning point is the citizenship of parties at the time the divorce was obtained and not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of marriage.
0 notes
96thdayofrage · 5 years
Text
Tumblr media
United States Congress
During his time in Congress, Ryan went to Newfoundland with James Jeffords to investigate the inhumane killing of seals,[15][16] and he was famous for vocal criticism of the lack of Congressional oversight of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), authoring the Hughes–Ryan Amendment,[17][18] which would have required extensive CIA notification of Congress about planned covert operations.[19][20] Congressman Ryan once told Dick Cheney that leaking a state secret was an appropriate way for a member of Congress to block an "ill-conceived operation".[21] Ryan supported Patricia Hearst, and along with Senator S. I. Hayakawa, delivered Hearst's application for a presidential commutation to the Pardon Attorney.[22]
Peoples Temple
In 1978, reports regarding widespread abuse and human rights violations in Jonestownamong the Peoples Temple, led by cult leader Jim Jones, began to filter out of the organization's Guyana enclaves. Ryan was friends with the father of former Temple Member Bob Houston, whose mutilated body was found near train tracks on October 5, 1976, three days after a taped telephone conversation with Houston's ex-wife in which leaving the Temple was discussed.[23] Ryan's interest was further aroused by the custody battle between the leader of a "Concerned Relatives" group, Timothy Stoen, and Jones following a Congressional "white paper" written by Stoen detailing the events.[24][25] Ryan was one of 91 Congressmen to write Guyanese Prime Minister Forbes Burnhamon Stoen's behalf.[23][24]
Later, after reading an article in the San Francisco Examiner, Ryan declared his intention to go to Jonestown, an agricultural commune in Guyana where Jim Jones and roughly 1,000 Temple members resided. Ryan's choice was also influenced both by the Concerned Relatives group, which consisted primarily of Californians, as were most Temple members, and by his own characteristic distaste for social injustice.[26]According to the San Francisco Chronicle, while investigating the events, the United States Department of State "repeatedly stonewalled Ryan's attempts to find out what was going on in Jonestown", and told him that "everything was fine".[9]
The State Department characterized possible action by the United States government in Guyana against Jonestown as creating a potential "legal controversy", but Ryan at least partially rejected this viewpoint.[27] In a later article in The Chronicle, Ryan was described as having "bucked the local Democratic establishment and the Jimmy Carter administration's State Department" in order to prepare for his own investigation.[12]
Travels to Jonestown
On November 1, 1978, Ryan announced that he would visit Jonestown.[28] He did so as part of a government investigation and received permission and government funds to do so.[29] He made the journey in his role as chairman of a congressional subcommittee with jurisdiction over U.S. citizens living in foreign countries. He asked the other members of his Bay Area congressional delegation to join him on the investigation to Jonestown, but they all declined his invitation.[9] Ryan had also asked his friend, IndianaCongressman and future Vice President Dan Quayle, to accompany him – Quayle had served with Ryan on the Government Operations Committee – but Quayle was unable to go on the trip.[30]
While the party was initially planned to consist of only a few members of the Congressman's staff and press as part of the congressional delegation, once the media learned of the trip the entourage ballooned to include, among others, concerned relatives of Temple members. Congressman Ryan traveled to Jonestown with 17 Bay Area relatives of Peoples Temple members, several newspaper reporters and an NBC TV team.[31] When the legal counsel for Jones attempted to impose several restrictive conditions on the visit, Ryan responded that he would be traveling to Jonestown whether Jones permitted it or not. Ryan's stated position was that a "settlement deep in the bush might be reasonably run on authoritarian lines".[31] However, residents of the settlement must be allowed to come and go as they pleased. He further asserted that if the situation had become "a gulag", he would do everything he could to "free the captives".[31]
Jungle ambush and assassination
On November 14, according to the Foreign Affairs Committee report,[32] Ryan left Washington and arrived in Georgetown, the capital of Guyana located 150 miles (240 km) away from Jonestown, with his congressional delegation of government officials, media representatives and some members of the "Concerned Relatives".[33]
Jonestown
Georgetown
Kaituma
Jonestown, Guyana.
That night the delegation stayed at a local hotel where, despite confirmed reservations, most of the rooms had been canceled and reassigned, leaving the delegation sleeping in the lobby.[34] For three days, Ryan continued negotiation with Jones's legal counsel and held perfunctory meetings with embassy personnel and Guyanese officials.[35]
While in Georgetown, Ryan visited the Temple's Georgetown headquarters in the suburb of Lamaha Gardens.[36] Ryan asked to speak to Jones by radio. Sharon Amos, the highest-ranking Temple member present, told Ryan that he could not because his present visit was unscheduled.[33] On November 17, Ryan's aide Jackie Speier (who became a Congresswoman in April 2008), the United States embassy Deputy Chief of Mission Richard Dwyer, a Guyanese Ministry of Information officer, nine journalists, and four Concerned Relatives representatives of the delegation boarded a small plane for the flight to an airfield at Port Kaituma a few miles outside of Jonestown.[32]
At first, only the Temple legal counsel was allowed off the plane, but eventually the entire entourage (including Gordon Lindsay, reporting for NBC) was allowed in. Initially, the welcome at Jonestown was warm,[29] but Temple member Vernon Gosney handed a note to NBC correspondent Don Harris (mistaking him for Ryan) which stated, "Please help me get out of Jonestown," listing himself and Temple member Monica Bagby.[31]
That night, the media and the delegation were returned to the airfield for accommodations following Jones' refusal to allow them to stay the night. The rest of the group remained.[32] The next morning, Ryan, Speier, and Dwyer all continued their interviews, and in the morning met a woman who secretly expressed her wish to leave Jonestown with her family and another family. Around 11:00 A.M. local time, the media and the delegation returned and took part in interviewing Peoples Temple members. Around 3:00 p.m., 14 Temple defectors, and Larry Layton posing as a defector, boarded a truck and were taken to the airstrip, with Ryan wishing to stay another night to assist any others that wished to leave. Shortly thereafter, a failed knife attack on Congressman Ryan occurred while he was arbitrating a family dispute on leaving.[37] Against Ryan's protests, Deputy Chief of Mission Dwyer ordered Ryan to leave, but he promised to return later to address the dispute.[32]
Camera-shot by Bob Brown (NBC) of shooters.
The entire group left Jonestown and arrived at the Kaituma airstrip by 4:45 p.m. local time. Their exit transport planes, a twin-engine Otter and a Cessna, did not arrive until 5:10 p.m. The smaller six-seat Cessna was just taxiing to the end of the runway when one of its occupants, Larry Layton, opened fire on those inside, wounding several.
Concurrently, several other Peoples Temple members who had escorted the group out began to open fire on the transport plane, killing Congressman Ryan, three journalists and a defecting Temple member, while wounding nine others, including Speier.[23][38] The gunmen riddled Congressman Ryan's body with bullets before shooting him in the face.[39] The passengers on the Cessna subdued Larry Layton and the surviving people on both planes fled into nearby fields during and after the attack.[32]
That afternoon, before the news became public, the wife of Ryan's aide, William Holsinger, received three threatening phone calls. The caller allegedly stated, "Tell your husband that his meal ticket just had his brains blown out, and he better be careful." The Holsingers then fled to Lake Tahoe and later to a ranch in Houston. They never returned to San Francisco.[40]
Following its takeoff, the Cessna radioed in a report of the attack, and the U.S. Ambassador, John R. Burke, went to the residence of Prime Minister Forbes Burnham.[32]It was not until the next morning that the Guyanese army could cut through the jungle and reach Jonestown.[32] They discovered 909 of its inhabitants dead. They died in what the United States House of Representatives described as a "mass suicide/murder ritual".[32]
Conviction of Larry Layton
Larry Layton, brother of author and former Peoples Temple member Deborah Layton, was convicted in 1986 of conspiracy in the murder of Leo Ryan.[41] Temple defectors boarding the truck to Port Kaituma warned about Larry Layton that "there's no way he's a defector. He's too close to Jones."[42] Layton was the only former Peoples Temple member to be tried in the United States for criminal acts relating to the murders at Jonestown.[43][44] He was convicted on four different murder-related counts.[45]
On March 3, 1987, Layton was sentenced to concurrent sentences of life in prison for "aiding and abetting the murder of Congressman Leo Ryan", "conspiracy to murder an internationally protected person, Richard Dwyer, Deputy Chief of Mission for the United States in the Republic of Guyana", as well as 15 years in prison on other related counts.[46] At that time, he was eligible for parole in five years.[47] On June 3, 1987, Layton's motion to set aside the conviction "on the ground that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during his second trial" was denied by the United States District Court of the Northern District of California.[47] After spending 18 years in prison, Layton was released from custody in April 2002.[48]
Memorial
In honor of Leo Ryan, Veterans for Peace Chapter 124 was named after him. VFP 124 Leo J. Ryan Memorial.
Burial
Ryan's headstone
Leo Ryan's body was returned to the United States and interred at Golden Gate National Cemetery in San Bruno, California. The official Congressional Memorial Services for Ryan were compiled into a book: Leo J. Ryan – Memorial Services – Held In The House Of Representatives & Senate Of The U. S., Together With Remarks.[49] Ryan's younger sister Shannon said she was surprised both by the number of supporters that attended the funeral, and by the "outgrowth of real, honest sorrow".[50]
Legacy and honors
In 1983, Ryan was posthumously awarded a Congressional Gold Medal by the United States Congress, as the only member of Congress killed while in the line of duty; the bill was signed by President Ronald Reagan.[51][52] In President Reagan's remarks about the medal, he said: "It was typical of Leo Ryan's concern for his constituents that he would investigate personally the rumors of mistreatment in Jonestown that reportedly affected so many from his district."[51] Ryan's daughters Patricia and Erin had helped to garner support for the Congressional Gold Medal, in time for the fifth anniversary of Ryan's death.[53]In 1984, the National Archives and Records Center in San Bruno, California was named the Leo J. Ryan Federal Building in his honor, through a Congressional bill passed unanimously and signed by President Reagan.[54]Jackie Speier, Ryan's former aide, was elected in 1998 to the California State Senate. In 2008 she won a special election to the US Congress from California's 12th congressional district, much of it formerly Ryan's constituency.[55] After redistricting, since 2013 it has been designated as the state's 14th congressional district.
3 notes · View notes
patriotsnet · 3 years
Text
How Many Republicans Are On The Supreme Court
New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-many-republicans-are-on-the-supreme-court/
How Many Republicans Are On The Supreme Court
Tumblr media
Dispute Over The Constitution
GOP senators confronted by past comments on Supreme Court nomination
The legal divide over voting and elections begins with a basic dispute over how to read the Constitution and American history.
As written in 1787, it gave voters a very limited role. Members of the House were to be chosen by the people, but state legislatures would choose their U.S. senators, appoint the electors who chose the President and set rules for elections.
But the Constitution has been repeatedly amended to broaden and bolster voting rights, including protections against discrimination based on gender and race.
The Warren court saw this evolution as putting the voters in charge of Americas democracy, but todays conservative justices espouse originalism and focus on the words of the 18th century Constitution.
Its a very different court now, USC law professor Franita Tolson said, much more deferential to the states, but also, she added, they are privileging the status quo of 1787 when the electorate was mostly white men and ignoring the more egalitarian Reconstruction Amendments.
The major ruling weakening the Voting Rights Act highlights the difference. Congress passed that law under the 15th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War to protect Black Americans from having their votes denied or their voting power diluted.
In striking down a key part of the law, Roberts wrote that the framers of the Constitution intended the states to keep for themselves the power to regulate elections.
Bonica And Woodruff Campaign Finance Scores
See also: Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores of state supreme court justices, 2012
In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan outlook of state supreme court justices in their paper, “State Supreme Court Ideology and ‘New Style’ Judicial Campaigns.” A score above 0 indicated a more conservative-leaning ideology while scores below 0 were more liberal. The state Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was given a campaign finance score , which was calculated for judges in October 2012. At that time, Pennsylvania received a score of -0.02. Based on the justices selected, Pennsylvania was the 24th most liberal court. The study was based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges, orin the absence of electionsthe ideology of the appointing body . This study was not a definitive label of a justice but rather an academic gauge of various factors.
Prior Public Service Of Incumbents
Brett Busby and Jane Bland are former Court of Appeals justices from Houston, whose re-election bids failed in November 2018 when Democrats won all of the judicial races in that election. Blacklock previously served Governor Greg Abbott as general counsel. Huddle was a justice on the First Court of Appeals in Houston.
Blacklock replaced Don Willett, who now sits on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate court that hears appeals from federal district courts in Texas. Busby succeeds Phil Johnson, who retired in 2018, and was sworn in on  March 20, 2019. Jane Bland was appointed in September 2019 to fill the vacancy left by Jeff Brown, who resigned from the SCOTX to accept appointment to a U.S. district court bench. Rebeca Huddle was appointed in October 2020 to replace Paul Green, who retired from the Court on August 31, 2020. Eva Guzman, the second-most senior member of the Court, resigned on June 11, 2021, and is preparing to challenge incumbent Attorney General Ken Paxton in the GOP primary for that office.
Go For It Democrats Pack The Court
Youve got a plan to pack the Supreme Court with four new justices. And nothing says unity like Democratic dominance.
Soon you can add the whole of the federal government to your grip on the culture academia, journalism, entertainment, sports, philanthropy and now even corporate America.
As an earlier president once said, Elections have consequences.
With your 50-50-plus-one split in the Senate and your hulking six-person advantage in the 435-member House, you have all the mandate you need to control the court. To control all of us.
Make all of your policy fantasies come true your Green New Deal, defund the police, reparations for slavery, the $15 minimum wage, critical race theory, soaring corporate taxes. They can all be a river to your people.
Please dont read this as sour grapes. This is encouragement. After the Capitol riot, many of us conservatives thought the Republican Party would spend the next decade in the wilderness.
But you wont let that happen. Your hard push to the left is awakening conservatives across the country.
Dissenting Opinion Byron White
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Bryon White was born in 1917 in Fort Collins, Colorado, and was educated at Yale Law School and the University of Oxford. He served in the U.S. Navy during World War II, where he met the future President John F. Kennedy. He worked as a law clerk and in private practice and later ran campaigns for John F. Kennedy. President Kennedy appointed him Deputy Attorney General and nominated him as Associate Justice to the Supreme Court in 1962. White was a notable conservative, and he dissented in the Roe v. Wade decision on what he viewed as disregard for potential life.
Some Republicans Feel Protected By 6
WASHINGTON Republican voters fearing a potential Joe Biden presidency are taking some solace in the belief that a newly conservative Supreme Court with Justice Amy Coney Barrett will restrain Democratic ambitions.
Some of President Donald Trumps supporters believe the new 6-3 majority of Republican appointees will be a bulwark against a Biden administrations attempts to move the country in a more progressive direction.
We have no fears because theres a conservative Supreme Court now, said Cynthia Manville of Buckeye, Arizona, who attended a Trump rally in Phoenix last Wednesday. We feel if Democrats cast legislation thats radical liberal, it wouldnt stand the test of time.
God has a certain way of watching over this country, said Manville, who attended with her husband, Steve, both of them wearing red Make America Great Again hats.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito
President George W. Bush nominated Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who had decided to step down from the bench earlier in the year. He was confirmed by a vote of 58-42 in January of 2006. Aliton has proven to be the better of the Justices appointed by President Bush. Chief Justice John Roberts ended up being the deciding vote in favor of keeping Obamacare, to the befuddlement of many conservatives. Alito dissented in major opinions on Obamacare, as well as a ruling in 2015 that effectively legalized gay marriage in all 50 states. Alito was born in 1950 and could serve ont he court for decades to come.Justice Alito was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2006 by Republican President George W. Bush.
Was Roe Vs Wade Decided By A Republican Court
The landmark abortion case of Roe v. Wade was decided by what theoretically should have been a “conservative” Supreme Court. The decision recognized a womans right to make individual medical decisions, including abortion in line with the constitutional right to privacy. The Court ruled that the state had no interests in a womans pregnancy in the first trimester and the woman thus had a right to terminate the pregnancy. The decision remains the most controversial of the Supreme Courts rulings in the US.
Is The Us Supreme Court Republican Or Democrat
Romney Supports Vote On Supreme Court Nominee As Senate Republicans Push Forward | NBC Nightly News
The Supreme Court of the United States is composed of nine justices who have been given lifelong appointments by sitting presidents upon approval of the Senate. As the highest component of the judicial branch of the government of the United States, SCOTUS is responsible for reviewing the constitutionality of all U.S. laws. Sometimes they uphold the laws, sometimes they do not. SCOTUS was established by the U.S. Constitution and is one of the checks and balances to the other two branches of the government legislative and executive .
The justices who sit on the Supreme Court have been nominated by a president and confirmed by the Senate. SCOTUS is particularly important because when one side or another push through legislation or executive order, the courts and the justices evaluate and determine the constitutionality and legitimacy of the said items. They also decide legal disputes among states and discrepancies in lower court rulings. This is why an impartial reviewing of the law would be critical.
The Supreme Court should be non-partisan: judges who are appointed to it are not supposed to bring their allegiances as Republicans or Democrats to the bench. However, as the appointments are made by presidents, judges are often perceived as having ideological leanings, whether to the Republican side or the Democratic side.
Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist
From his appointment by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 until his death in 2005, Supreme Court Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist served as Chief Justice of the United States and became a conservative icon. Rehnquist’s term on the High Court began in 1972, when he was appointed by Richard M. Nixon. He wasted no time in distinguishing himself as a conservative, offering one of only two dissenting opinions in the controversial 1973 abortion-rights case, Roe v. Wade. Rehnquist was a strong supporter of state’s rights, as outlined in the Constitution, and took the concept of judicial restraint seriously, consistently siding with conservatives on the issues of religious expression, free speech and the expansion of federal powers.
Liberal Push To Expand Supreme Court Is All But Dead Among Hill Dems
Senate Republicans are still seizing on the issue in the lead-up to the 2022 midterms.
04/26/2021 04:30 AM EDT
Link Copied
Supreme Court expansion was one of the lefts most galvanizing ideas during the 2020 Democratic primary. But the idea is going nowhere with sitting Democratic senators.
I dont think the American public is interested in having the Supreme Court expanded, said Sen. Michael Bennet .
Sen. Mark Kelly , who represents a particularly valuable swing state, said the more responsible thing to do is to keep it at nine justices. And Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto said she opposes adding seats that politicize the court.
That trio is facing reelection in 2022, making their opinions particularly important to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer . But as Sen. Ed Markey formally pushes for high court expansion, resurfacing the popular progressive cause in response to the GOPs relentless drive to fill court seats during the Trump years, its clear that few of Markeys colleagues agree with him.
While liberal measures on election reform, police bias and congressional ethics remain relatively popular with the 50-member Senate majority, expanding the Supreme Court is close to dead among the chambers Democrats.
This is in the category of things that couldnt muster 50 votes and probably couldnt muster 40 votes, said Sen. Brian Schatz . We have a historic opportunity to make change here and we should focus on those issues where we can get a majority.
How Many Republicans Are In The Supreme Court
Supreme CourtRepublicancourtsRepublicancourtscourts
As of October 6, 2018, of the 9 judges on the Supreme Court, 5 were appointed by a Republican president, and 4 were appointed by a Democratic president. As of February 11, 2020, of the 13 federal appeals courts, Republican appointees have a majority on 7 courts, while Democrat appointees have a majority on 6 courts.
Secondly, how many Supreme Court Justices are conservative? Both graphs indicate that the current Roberts Court remains conservative, with four conservative justices and the median position held by Justice Anthony Kennedy , who has also become more liberal (except Kennedy
who are the 9 Supreme Court Justices and who appointed them?
All justices
Samuel Chase
Who is currently on the Supreme Court?
Current justicesThe Supreme Court consists of a chief justice, currently John Roberts, and eight associate justices.
Nonpartisan Election Of Judges
Tumblr media Tumblr media
In a nonpartisan election, some states require candidates to declare their party affiliations, while some states prohibit them from doing so. If primaries are held, they do not narrow the candidates to one per party; instead, they typically narrow the candidates to two for each seat regardless of party.
In 2020, there were 31 nonpartisan state supreme court elections. Of these elections, there were:
31 nonpartisan seats.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan
Justice Elena Kagan joined the Supreme Court in 2010 after being nominated by former President Barack Obama.
Elena Kagan, 58, has served on the Supreme Court since 2010. She was nominated by former President Barack Obama.
Kagan has degrees from Princeton University, Oxford University and Harvard Law School. She previously was a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School and Harvard Law School. A Democrat, she also served in the Clinton administration, clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and served as the Dean of Harvard Law School.
Facts About The Supreme Court
For the second time in four years, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin its term on Monday with only eight of nine justices, following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in mid-September. The high court last carried out its duties with eight justices after the death of Antonin Scalia in 2016.
As it did four years ago, the death of a sitting justice has thrust the court into the center of a bruising political campaign for the White House. Republican President Donald Trump has nominated federal appellate judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy left by Ginsburg, even as Trumps opponent, Democrat Joe Biden, calls for confirmation proceedings to be postponed until after voters have cast their ballots for president. Republicans control the U.S. Senate and have vowed to move forward with Barretts confirmation over the objections of Biden and other Democrats.
As the high court gets back to work and hears arguments in a new set of cases including one that seeks to invalidate the 2010 Affordable Care Act here are five facts about the Supreme Court, based on surveys and other recent analyses by Pew Research Center:
In the summer, before Ginsburgs death, seven-in-ten U.S. adults said they had a favorable view of the Supreme Court. That included three-quarters of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic leaners, according to an online survey using the Centers American Trends Panel.
In 2013 Reid And Democrats Lowered Vote Threshold On Most Nominees But Not For Supreme Court Picks
In 2013, Democrats held a majority in the Senate while President Barack Obama occupied the White House. 
For four decades, a 60-vote supermajority had been required to advance all federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments, per The Washington Post.
Then, Senate Republicans attempted to filibuster multiple Obama nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, his pick for Defense secretary, and his choices to lead the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
In response, Reid orchestrated a move to lower the Senate vote threshold to 51 to confirm most presidential appointments  but not nominees to the Supreme Court.
Those nominees, and legislation, could still be filibustered.
The Democrat-controlled Senate voted 52-48 in favor of the change, which was dubbed the “nuclear option.”
At the time, McConnell condemned the move.
Its a sad day in the history of the Senate, he told reporters, calling it a power grab” by Democrats.
Agreement Among The Justices
Will Republicans Have The Votes To Fill Ruth Bader Ginsburgs SCOTUS Seat? | Sunday TODAY
While the highest levels of agreement were among justices in the same ideological blocs, some pairs, particularly among the more conservative justices, agreed much less often than they did last term.
91%
Alito-Roberts
78
On the whole, Justice Breyers voting record in the last term tilted left. He voted with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the courts most liberal member, 91 percent of the time in divided cases in which all of the justices participated, up 18 percentage points from the previous term. Only one other pair of justices agreed that often: Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, also at 91 percent.
At the other end of the spectrum, Justices Alito and Sotomayor agreed just 22 percent of the time. And there were signs of division on the right side of the court. Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Mr. Trumps first two appointees, agreed 65 percent of the time, down 20 percentage points from the previous term.
The court decided just 54argued cases with signed opinions, the second-smallest number since the 1860s. The smallest was in the last term, at 53.
The Court Is Deciding Fewer Cases
The number of decisions in argued cases has fallen fairly steadily since the 1980s.
150
2010
2020
The courts docket in the term that starts in October may not be larger, but it will contain at least two potentially far-reaching cases: a challenge to the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade and the most important Second Amendment case in more than a decade.
Marin K. Levy, a law professor at Duke, said the decision issued on Thursday upholding voting restrictions in Arizona fundamentally changed how this term will be remembered.
It puts an exclamation point on what had otherwise been a fairly quiet term, she said. It also sets the tone for next year, when the court will hear cases on hot-button topics including gun regulation and abortion.
How Republicans Have Packed The Courts For Years
Jackie CalmesTimesDissent: The Radicalization of the Republican Party and Its Capture of the Court
While Republicans lately have been attacking Democrats for plotting to pack the federal courts with like-minded judges, their party has been doing it for years.
Through bare-knuckle tactics in the Senate, an animated base of voters and an institutionalized and well-funded pipeline for judges, Republicans have stocked the federal bench at all levels with conservatives who share the rights support for whacking at the wall between church and state and at the powers of federal regulatory agencies, banning abortion and expanding gun rights.
Republicans ruthless success in the judicial wars is most evident on the highest court in the land. As the Supreme Court with its new 6-3 conservative majority ends its term this month, the question for court-watchers isnt whether it will rule in a conservative way. Its how far-reaching will those rulings be.
The courts bent was perhaps most evident in its decision last month to review a Mississippi law generally barring abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, after two lower courts ruled the statute plainly violated Supreme Court precedents that the Constitution protects a womans right to have an abortion until a fetus is viable. The case will be decided in the courts next term that starts in October.
List Of Elections In 2020
The map and table below detail which states held elections for supreme court seats in 2020. The darker shade of green a state appears in the map, the more seats were on the ballot. States shown in gray in the map did not hold supreme court elections in 2020.
2020 State Supreme Court Elections State November 3, 2020
Incumbent Win Rates By Year
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Incumbents tend to do better in elections for any office than newcomers facing incumbents. This is no less true in state supreme court elections. Across all types of state supreme court elections, incumbent justices running for re-election won 93% of the time from 2008-2020. No more than six incumbent justices have lost in a single year during this time frame. 2008 was the year with the lowest incumbent win rate at 89%.
Incumbent win rates in state supreme court elections Election year
How Conservative Is The New Supreme Court Majority Really
The 360 shows you diverse perspectives on the days top stories and debates.
Whats happening
The Supreme Court began its summer recess last week, bringing an end to a term that served as the first test of its new 6-3 conservative majority, with all three of former President Donald Trump’s appointees on the bench.
During Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to replace liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the final weeks before the 2020 presidential election, Democrats warned and some Republicans hoped that a court dominated by conservatives would be primed to radically rewrite the nations laws on a host of major issues through a series of partisan decisions. That prediction, for the most part, didnt come to pass.
Over the course of this past term, the court considered a number of controversial cases, but only a few ended in 6-3 rulings along ideological lines. All nine justices sided with a religious foster care agency that had sued the city of Philadelphia after having its contract canceled because it refused to place children with same-sex couples. In a 7-2 vote, the court rebuffed the latest Republican attempt to kill the Affordable Care Act. The justices were also unanimous in knocking down restrictions on education-related spending for college athletes. Trumps efforts to challenge the results of the election were rejected by the court, with the only disagreement being among conservative justices.
Why theres debate
Whats next
List Of Nominations To The Supreme Court Of The United States
This article is part of the series on the
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest ranking judicial body in the United States. Established by Article III of the Constitution, the Court was organized by the 1st United States Congress through the Judiciary Act of 1789, which specified its original and appellate jurisdiction, created 13 judicial districts, and fixed the size of the Supreme Court at six, with one chief justice and five associate justices. During the 19th century, Congress changed the size of the Court on seven occasions, concluding with the Judiciary Act of 1869 which stipulates that the Court consists of the chief justice and eight associate justices.
George Washington holds the record for most Supreme Court nominations, with 14 nominations . Making the second-most nominations were Franklin D. Roosevelt and John Tyler, with nine each . Three presidentsâWilliam Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and Jimmy Carterâdid not make any nominations, as there were no vacancies while they were in office, and there have not been any vacancies during the current administration of Joe Biden.
Retention Election Of Judges
In a retention election, an incumbent judge does not face an opponent. A question is placed on the ballot asking whether each judge shall be retained for another term, and voters choose “yes” or “no.” Judges must receive majority “yes” votes in order to remain in their seats.
In 2020, there were 29 retention state supreme court elections. Of these elections, there were:
28 nonpartisan seats
one Democratic-controlled seat
Roe V Wade Was Decided By A Republican
Trump, Republican on rapid pace to fill Supreme Court justice seat | GMA
One of the major issues in this presidential election concerns the nomination and subsequent appointment of at least one Supreme Court justice and possibly two or more justices.
It seems that among evangelical Christians, two issues in particular are driving support for Donald Trump: the nomination/appointment of Supreme Court justices, and the fact that he is Republican.
Moreover, at the center of the Supreme Court discussion is the 1973 Court decision on Roe vs. Wade.
During the final debate between Clinton and Trump, held at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, on October 19, 2016, and moderated by Chris Wallace of Fox News, Wallace opened the debate with discussion of the Supreme Court. Below are the excerpted responses from Clinton and Trump on the issue of nominating Supreme Court justices, especially as such concerns Roe vs. Wade.
Clinton:But I feel that at this point in our countrys history, it is important that we not reverse Roe v.Wade.
Thats how I see the court, and the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on behalf of our rights as Americans.
Trump:I feel that the justices that I am going to appoint and Ive named 20 of them the justices that Im going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent.
But let us consider the assumption that justices nominated by Republican presidents will lead to overturning Roe vs. Wade.
0 notes
statetalks · 3 years
Text
How Many Republicans Are On The Supreme Court
Dispute Over The Constitution
GOP senators confronted by past comments on Supreme Court nomination
The legal divide over voting and elections begins with a basic dispute over how to read the Constitution and American history.
As written in 1787, it gave voters a very limited role. Members of the House were to be chosen by the people, but state legislatures would choose their U.S. senators, appoint the electors who chose the President and set rules for elections.
But the Constitution has been repeatedly amended to broaden and bolster voting rights, including protections against discrimination based on gender and race.
The Warren court saw this evolution as putting the voters in charge of Americas democracy, but todays conservative justices espouse originalism and focus on the words of the 18th century Constitution.
Its a very different court now, USC law professor Franita Tolson said, much more deferential to the states, but also, she added, they are privileging the status quo of 1787 when the electorate was mostly white men and ignoring the more egalitarian Reconstruction Amendments.
The major ruling weakening the Voting Rights Act highlights the difference. Congress passed that law under the 15th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War to protect Black Americans from having their votes denied or their voting power diluted.
In striking down a key part of the law, Roberts wrote that the framers of the Constitution intended the states to keep for themselves the power to regulate elections.
Bonica And Woodruff Campaign Finance Scores
See also: Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores of state supreme court justices, 2012
In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan outlook of state supreme court justices in their paper, “State Supreme Court Ideology and ‘New Style’ Judicial Campaigns.” A score above 0 indicated a more conservative-leaning ideology while scores below 0 were more liberal. The state Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was given a campaign finance score , which was calculated for judges in October 2012. At that time, Pennsylvania received a score of -0.02. Based on the justices selected, Pennsylvania was the 24th most liberal court. The study was based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges, orin the absence of electionsthe ideology of the appointing body . This study was not a definitive label of a justice but rather an academic gauge of various factors.
Prior Public Service Of Incumbents
Brett Busby and Jane Bland are former Court of Appeals justices from Houston, whose re-election bids failed in November 2018 when Democrats won all of the judicial races in that election. Blacklock previously served Governor Greg Abbott as general counsel. Huddle was a justice on the First Court of Appeals in Houston.
Blacklock replaced Don Willett, who now sits on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate court that hears appeals from federal district courts in Texas. Busby succeeds Phil Johnson, who retired in 2018, and was sworn in on  March 20, 2019. Jane Bland was appointed in September 2019 to fill the vacancy left by Jeff Brown, who resigned from the SCOTX to accept appointment to a U.S. district court bench. Rebeca Huddle was appointed in October 2020 to replace Paul Green, who retired from the Court on August 31, 2020. Eva Guzman, the second-most senior member of the Court, resigned on June 11, 2021, and is preparing to challenge incumbent Attorney General Ken Paxton in the GOP primary for that office.
Go For It Democrats Pack The Court
Youve got a plan to pack the Supreme Court with four new justices. And nothing says unity like Democratic dominance.
Soon you can add the whole of the federal government to your grip on the culture academia, journalism, entertainment, sports, philanthropy and now even corporate America.
As an earlier president once said, Elections have consequences.
With your 50-50-plus-one split in the Senate and your hulking six-person advantage in the 435-member House, you have all the mandate you need to control the court. To control all of us.
Make all of your policy fantasies come true your Green New Deal, defund the police, reparations for slavery, the $15 minimum wage, critical race theory, soaring corporate taxes. They can all be a river to your people.
Please dont read this as sour grapes. This is encouragement. After the Capitol riot, many of us conservatives thought the Republican Party would spend the next decade in the wilderness.
But you wont let that happen. Your hard push to the left is awakening conservatives across the country.
Dissenting Opinion Byron White
Tumblr media
Bryon White was born in 1917 in Fort Collins, Colorado, and was educated at Yale Law School and the University of Oxford. He served in the U.S. Navy during World War II, where he met the future President John F. Kennedy. He worked as a law clerk and in private practice and later ran campaigns for John F. Kennedy. President Kennedy appointed him Deputy Attorney General and nominated him as Associate Justice to the Supreme Court in 1962. White was a notable conservative, and he dissented in the Roe v. Wade decision on what he viewed as disregard for potential life.
Some Republicans Feel Protected By 6
WASHINGTON Republican voters fearing a potential Joe Biden presidency are taking some solace in the belief that a newly conservative Supreme Court with Justice Amy Coney Barrett will restrain Democratic ambitions.
Some of President Donald Trumps supporters believe the new 6-3 majority of Republican appointees will be a bulwark against a Biden administrations attempts to move the country in a more progressive direction.
We have no fears because theres a conservative Supreme Court now, said Cynthia Manville of Buckeye, Arizona, who attended a Trump rally in Phoenix last Wednesday. We feel if Democrats cast legislation thats radical liberal, it wouldnt stand the test of time.
God has a certain way of watching over this country, said Manville, who attended with her husband, Steve, both of them wearing red Make America Great Again hats.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito
President George W. Bush nominated Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who had decided to step down from the bench earlier in the year. He was confirmed by a vote of 58-42 in January of 2006. Aliton has proven to be the better of the Justices appointed by President Bush. Chief Justice John Roberts ended up being the deciding vote in favor of keeping Obamacare, to the befuddlement of many conservatives. Alito dissented in major opinions on Obamacare, as well as a ruling in 2015 that effectively legalized gay marriage in all 50 states. Alito was born in 1950 and could serve ont he court for decades to come.Justice Alito was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2006 by Republican President George W. Bush.
Was Roe Vs Wade Decided By A Republican Court
The landmark abortion case of Roe v. Wade was decided by what theoretically should have been a “conservative” Supreme Court. The decision recognized a womans right to make individual medical decisions, including abortion in line with the constitutional right to privacy. The Court ruled that the state had no interests in a womans pregnancy in the first trimester and the woman thus had a right to terminate the pregnancy. The decision remains the most controversial of the Supreme Courts rulings in the US.
Is The Us Supreme Court Republican Or Democrat
Romney Supports Vote On Supreme Court Nominee As Senate Republicans Push Forward | NBC Nightly News
The Supreme Court of the United States is composed of nine justices who have been given lifelong appointments by sitting presidents upon approval of the Senate. As the highest component of the judicial branch of the government of the United States, SCOTUS is responsible for reviewing the constitutionality of all U.S. laws. Sometimes they uphold the laws, sometimes they do not. SCOTUS was established by the U.S. Constitution and is one of the checks and balances to the other two branches of the government legislative and executive .
The justices who sit on the Supreme Court have been nominated by a president and confirmed by the Senate. SCOTUS is particularly important because when one side or another push through legislation or executive order, the courts and the justices evaluate and determine the constitutionality and legitimacy of the said items. They also decide legal disputes among states and discrepancies in lower court rulings. This is why an impartial reviewing of the law would be critical.
The Supreme Court should be non-partisan: judges who are appointed to it are not supposed to bring their allegiances as Republicans or Democrats to the bench. However, as the appointments are made by presidents, judges are often perceived as having ideological leanings, whether to the Republican side or the Democratic side.
Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist
From his appointment by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 until his death in 2005, Supreme Court Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist served as Chief Justice of the United States and became a conservative icon. Rehnquist’s term on the High Court began in 1972, when he was appointed by Richard M. Nixon. He wasted no time in distinguishing himself as a conservative, offering one of only two dissenting opinions in the controversial 1973 abortion-rights case, Roe v. Wade. Rehnquist was a strong supporter of state’s rights, as outlined in the Constitution, and took the concept of judicial restraint seriously, consistently siding with conservatives on the issues of religious expression, free speech and the expansion of federal powers.
Liberal Push To Expand Supreme Court Is All But Dead Among Hill Dems
Senate Republicans are still seizing on the issue in the lead-up to the 2022 midterms.
04/26/2021 04:30 AM EDT
Link Copied
Supreme Court expansion was one of the lefts most galvanizing ideas during the 2020 Democratic primary. But the idea is going nowhere with sitting Democratic senators.
I dont think the American public is interested in having the Supreme Court expanded, said Sen. Michael Bennet .
Sen. Mark Kelly , who represents a particularly valuable swing state, said the more responsible thing to do is to keep it at nine justices. And Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto said she opposes adding seats that politicize the court.
That trio is facing reelection in 2022, making their opinions particularly important to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer . But as Sen. Ed Markey formally pushes for high court expansion, resurfacing the popular progressive cause in response to the GOPs relentless drive to fill court seats during the Trump years, its clear that few of Markeys colleagues agree with him.
While liberal measures on election reform, police bias and congressional ethics remain relatively popular with the 50-member Senate majority, expanding the Supreme Court is close to dead among the chambers Democrats.
This is in the category of things that couldnt muster 50 votes and probably couldnt muster 40 votes, said Sen. Brian Schatz . We have a historic opportunity to make change here and we should focus on those issues where we can get a majority.
How Many Republicans Are In The Supreme Court
Supreme CourtRepublicancourtsRepublicancourtscourts
As of October 6, 2018, of the 9 judges on the Supreme Court, 5 were appointed by a Republican president, and 4 were appointed by a Democratic president. As of February 11, 2020, of the 13 federal appeals courts, Republican appointees have a majority on 7 courts, while Democrat appointees have a majority on 6 courts.
Secondly, how many Supreme Court Justices are conservative? Both graphs indicate that the current Roberts Court remains conservative, with four conservative justices and the median position held by Justice Anthony Kennedy , who has also become more liberal (except Kennedy
who are the 9 Supreme Court Justices and who appointed them?
All justices
Samuel Chase
Who is currently on the Supreme Court?
Current justicesThe Supreme Court consists of a chief justice, currently John Roberts, and eight associate justices.
Nonpartisan Election Of Judges
Tumblr media
In a nonpartisan election, some states require candidates to declare their party affiliations, while some states prohibit them from doing so. If primaries are held, they do not narrow the candidates to one per party; instead, they typically narrow the candidates to two for each seat regardless of party.
In 2020, there were 31 nonpartisan state supreme court elections. Of these elections, there were:
31 nonpartisan seats.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan
Justice Elena Kagan joined the Supreme Court in 2010 after being nominated by former President Barack Obama.
Elena Kagan, 58, has served on the Supreme Court since 2010. She was nominated by former President Barack Obama.
Kagan has degrees from Princeton University, Oxford University and Harvard Law School. She previously was a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School and Harvard Law School. A Democrat, she also served in the Clinton administration, clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and served as the Dean of Harvard Law School.
Facts About The Supreme Court
For the second time in four years, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin its term on Monday with only eight of nine justices, following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in mid-September. The high court last carried out its duties with eight justices after the death of Antonin Scalia in 2016.
As it did four years ago, the death of a sitting justice has thrust the court into the center of a bruising political campaign for the White House. Republican President Donald Trump has nominated federal appellate judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy left by Ginsburg, even as Trumps opponent, Democrat Joe Biden, calls for confirmation proceedings to be postponed until after voters have cast their ballots for president. Republicans control the U.S. Senate and have vowed to move forward with Barretts confirmation over the objections of Biden and other Democrats.
As the high court gets back to work and hears arguments in a new set of cases including one that seeks to invalidate the 2010 Affordable Care Act here are five facts about the Supreme Court, based on surveys and other recent analyses by Pew Research Center:
In the summer, before Ginsburgs death, seven-in-ten U.S. adults said they had a favorable view of the Supreme Court. That included three-quarters of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic leaners, according to an online survey using the Centers American Trends Panel.
In 2013 Reid And Democrats Lowered Vote Threshold On Most Nominees But Not For Supreme Court Picks
In 2013, Democrats held a majority in the Senate while President Barack Obama occupied the White House. 
For four decades, a 60-vote supermajority had been required to advance all federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments, per The Washington Post.
Then, Senate Republicans attempted to filibuster multiple Obama nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, his pick for Defense secretary, and his choices to lead the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
In response, Reid orchestrated a move to lower the Senate vote threshold to 51 to confirm most presidential appointments  but not nominees to the Supreme Court.
Those nominees, and legislation, could still be filibustered.
The Democrat-controlled Senate voted 52-48 in favor of the change, which was dubbed the “nuclear option.”
At the time, McConnell condemned the move.
Its a sad day in the history of the Senate, he told reporters, calling it a power grab” by Democrats.
Agreement Among The Justices
Will Republicans Have The Votes To Fill Ruth Bader Ginsburgs SCOTUS Seat? | Sunday TODAY
While the highest levels of agreement were among justices in the same ideological blocs, some pairs, particularly among the more conservative justices, agreed much less often than they did last term.
91%
Alito-Roberts
78
On the whole, Justice Breyers voting record in the last term tilted left. He voted with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the courts most liberal member, 91 percent of the time in divided cases in which all of the justices participated, up 18 percentage points from the previous term. Only one other pair of justices agreed that often: Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, also at 91 percent.
At the other end of the spectrum, Justices Alito and Sotomayor agreed just 22 percent of the time. And there were signs of division on the right side of the court. Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Mr. Trumps first two appointees, agreed 65 percent of the time, down 20 percentage points from the previous term.
The court decided just 54argued cases with signed opinions, the second-smallest number since the 1860s. The smallest was in the last term, at 53.
The Court Is Deciding Fewer Cases
The number of decisions in argued cases has fallen fairly steadily since the 1980s.
150
2010
2020
The courts docket in the term that starts in October may not be larger, but it will contain at least two potentially far-reaching cases: a challenge to the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade and the most important Second Amendment case in more than a decade.
Marin K. Levy, a law professor at Duke, said the decision issued on Thursday upholding voting restrictions in Arizona fundamentally changed how this term will be remembered.
It puts an exclamation point on what had otherwise been a fairly quiet term, she said. It also sets the tone for next year, when the court will hear cases on hot-button topics including gun regulation and abortion.
How Republicans Have Packed The Courts For Years
Jackie CalmesTimesDissent: The Radicalization of the Republican Party and Its Capture of the Court
While Republicans lately have been attacking Democrats for plotting to pack the federal courts with like-minded judges, their party has been doing it for years.
Through bare-knuckle tactics in the Senate, an animated base of voters and an institutionalized and well-funded pipeline for judges, Republicans have stocked the federal bench at all levels with conservatives who share the rights support for whacking at the wall between church and state and at the powers of federal regulatory agencies, banning abortion and expanding gun rights.
Republicans ruthless success in the judicial wars is most evident on the highest court in the land. As the Supreme Court with its new 6-3 conservative majority ends its term this month, the question for court-watchers isnt whether it will rule in a conservative way. Its how far-reaching will those rulings be.
The courts bent was perhaps most evident in its decision last month to review a Mississippi law generally barring abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, after two lower courts ruled the statute plainly violated Supreme Court precedents that the Constitution protects a womans right to have an abortion until a fetus is viable. The case will be decided in the courts next term that starts in October.
List Of Elections In 2020
The map and table below detail which states held elections for supreme court seats in 2020. The darker shade of green a state appears in the map, the more seats were on the ballot. States shown in gray in the map did not hold supreme court elections in 2020.
2020 State Supreme Court Elections State November 3, 2020
Incumbent Win Rates By Year
Tumblr media
Incumbents tend to do better in elections for any office than newcomers facing incumbents. This is no less true in state supreme court elections. Across all types of state supreme court elections, incumbent justices running for re-election won 93% of the time from 2008-2020. No more than six incumbent justices have lost in a single year during this time frame. 2008 was the year with the lowest incumbent win rate at 89%.
Incumbent win rates in state supreme court elections Election year
How Conservative Is The New Supreme Court Majority Really
The 360 shows you diverse perspectives on the days top stories and debates.
Whats happening
The Supreme Court began its summer recess last week, bringing an end to a term that served as the first test of its new 6-3 conservative majority, with all three of former President Donald Trump’s appointees on the bench.
During Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to replace liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the final weeks before the 2020 presidential election, Democrats warned and some Republicans hoped that a court dominated by conservatives would be primed to radically rewrite the nations laws on a host of major issues through a series of partisan decisions. That prediction, for the most part, didnt come to pass.
Over the course of this past term, the court considered a number of controversial cases, but only a few ended in 6-3 rulings along ideological lines. All nine justices sided with a religious foster care agency that had sued the city of Philadelphia after having its contract canceled because it refused to place children with same-sex couples. In a 7-2 vote, the court rebuffed the latest Republican attempt to kill the Affordable Care Act. The justices were also unanimous in knocking down restrictions on education-related spending for college athletes. Trumps efforts to challenge the results of the election were rejected by the court, with the only disagreement being among conservative justices.
Why theres debate
Whats next
List Of Nominations To The Supreme Court Of The United States
This article is part of the series on the
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest ranking judicial body in the United States. Established by Article III of the Constitution, the Court was organized by the 1st United States Congress through the Judiciary Act of 1789, which specified its original and appellate jurisdiction, created 13 judicial districts, and fixed the size of the Supreme Court at six, with one chief justice and five associate justices. During the 19th century, Congress changed the size of the Court on seven occasions, concluding with the Judiciary Act of 1869 which stipulates that the Court consists of the chief justice and eight associate justices.
George Washington holds the record for most Supreme Court nominations, with 14 nominations . Making the second-most nominations were Franklin D. Roosevelt and John Tyler, with nine each . Three presidentsâWilliam Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and Jimmy Carterâdid not make any nominations, as there were no vacancies while they were in office, and there have not been any vacancies during the current administration of Joe Biden.
Retention Election Of Judges
In a retention election, an incumbent judge does not face an opponent. A question is placed on the ballot asking whether each judge shall be retained for another term, and voters choose “yes” or “no.” Judges must receive majority “yes” votes in order to remain in their seats.
In 2020, there were 29 retention state supreme court elections. Of these elections, there were:
28 nonpartisan seats
one Democratic-controlled seat
Roe V Wade Was Decided By A Republican
Trump, Republican on rapid pace to fill Supreme Court justice seat | GMA
One of the major issues in this presidential election concerns the nomination and subsequent appointment of at least one Supreme Court justice and possibly two or more justices.
It seems that among evangelical Christians, two issues in particular are driving support for Donald Trump: the nomination/appointment of Supreme Court justices, and the fact that he is Republican.
Moreover, at the center of the Supreme Court discussion is the 1973 Court decision on Roe vs. Wade.
During the final debate between Clinton and Trump, held at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, on October 19, 2016, and moderated by Chris Wallace of Fox News, Wallace opened the debate with discussion of the Supreme Court. Below are the excerpted responses from Clinton and Trump on the issue of nominating Supreme Court justices, especially as such concerns Roe vs. Wade.
Clinton:But I feel that at this point in our countrys history, it is important that we not reverse Roe v.Wade.
Thats how I see the court, and the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on behalf of our rights as Americans.
Trump:I feel that the justices that I am going to appoint and Ive named 20 of them the justices that Im going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent.
But let us consider the assumption that justices nominated by Republican presidents will lead to overturning Roe vs. Wade.
source https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-many-republicans-are-on-the-supreme-court/
0 notes
bzalma · 3 years
Link
Claim for Damage to Property that Existed Before Issuance of Policy is Fraud
Posted on August 4, 2021 by Barry Zalma
Tumblr media
It is a Crime to Claim Preexisting Damage as New Damage
After accepting a Plea Agreement the Defendant has no right to expunge his criminal record
Tumblr media
Vsevolod Sergee Garanin appealed from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, denying his expungement petition. In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania v. Vsevolod Sergee Garanin, No. 337 MDA 2020, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (July 30, 2021) the court resolved his claims.
FACTS
On April 4, 2016, Garanin purchased an “Ultrapack Insurance Policy” from Erie Insurance Group for a four-unit rental property on Ripple Street in Scranton, PA. This policy became effective beginning April 4, 2016. Subsequently, on October 14, 2016, Garanin submitted an insurance claim for four freeze-damaged boilers at the insured property, and Erie Insurance Group generated a claim. Garanin claimed that the boilers were damaged by sub-freezing temperatures that occurred in April of 2016. On November 1, 2016, inspection revealed that the freezing damage to the boilers occurred prior to, or during, March 2016, prior to the issuance of the policy.
Moreover, Garanin’s “handyman” and plumber confirmed that the boilers were in the building in March 2016 and that, when he tried to fire them, they were cracked and damaged. Garanin willingly made this fraudulent insurance claim, with misleading support, to obtain a loss payment of $35, 800.00 for damages that occurred before his insurance policy was in effect.
On June 7, 2017, the Commonwealth charged Garanin with three third-degree felonies: theft by deception-false impression, theft by deception-failure to correct, and, insurance fraud.
On May 17, 2018, the Commonwealth’s attorney sent a letter to defense counsel formalizing a final offer of a plea to criminal attempt-theft by deception-failure to correct, a first-degree misdemeanor, in exchange for Garanin’s promise to:
pay $20, 000.00 to the Northeastern Pennsylvania (NEPA) Insurance Fraud Task Force;
withdraw any and all civil lawsuits against the Scranton Housing Authority;
perform 20 hours of community service in Lackawanna County prior to his sentence date; and
dissolve his corporation, Ukrapprop 2 LLC.
The Commonwealth’s offer letter stated that, “in addition, the Commonwealth will be willing to drop all other charges not listed herein.” (emphasis added).]
On June 6, 2018, pursuant to the proffered plea agreement, the Commonwealth dismissed two of the three charges. Furthermore, the Commonwealth amended the remaining charge to a first-degree misdemeanor grading, wherein Garanin entered a guilty plea to criminal attempt-theft by deception- failure to correct. On January 8, 2019, after a thorough review of the pre-sentence investigation report, Sentencing Guidelines, Garanin’s history and characteristics, and the underlying nature of Garanin’s offense, the trial court sentenced Garanin to the restrictive intermediate punishment program for a four-year probationary period including three months incarceration, three months Lackawanna County house arrest program, pay restitution to Erie Insurance Group for the amount of $5, 413.00, and refrain from the use of drugs and alcohol. Thereafter, on June 25, 2019, Garanin filed a petition to expunge,  requesting to fully expunge arrests and other court records pertaining to the two nolle prossed [Will not prosecute] charges of theft by deception-false impression  and insurance fraud.
ANALYSIS
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has set forth the well-settled appellate standard of review for a court’s grant or denial of a petition to expunge a criminal arrest record that the decision to grant or deny a petition to expunge rests with the sound discretion of the trial court, and appellate court’s review that court’s decision only for abuse of discretion. [Commonwealth v. Moto, 23 A.3d 989, 993 (Pa. 2011)]
When a prosecution has been terminated without conviction or acquittal, for reasons such as nolle prosse of the charges or the defendant’s successful completion of an accelerated rehabilitative disposition program then the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has required the trial court to “balance the individual’s right to be free from the harm attendant to maintenance of the arrest record against the Commonwealth’s interest in preserving such records.”
However, this Court has distinguished those cases where the prosecution has nolle prossed charges against the defendant from cases in which charges were dropped pursuant to a plea agreement. In those cases where charges are dropped or dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement, expungement is inappropriate because it obscures the true circumstances under which the defendant was convicted.
The trial court found that the charges were actually dropped or dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement because the Commonwealth never conceded that it lacked the necessary evidence to proceed on the felony charges.
It is axiomatic that the Commonwealth’s decision to drop charges pursuant to a plea agreement carries no implicit admission that proof is lacking. Rather, that decision is simply part of a bargain with the defendant to avoid a trial in exchange for a plea to lesser charges. Such a bargain is quasi-contractual. If the court then expunged the dismissed charges, the court would leave no accurate record of the contractual relationship entered into by Appellant and the Commonwealth.
In the absence of an agreement as to expungement, Appellant stands to receive more than he bargained for in the plea agreement if the dismissed charges are later expunged.
Garanin’s case is sufficiently distinguishable from his claimed authorities and a remand for an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary. Garanin’s guilty plea is of record, as is a recitation of the plea agreement by virtue of the Special Prosecutor’s final plea offer letter.
The appellate court concluded that Garanin’s felony charges were dropped pursuant to a plea agreement based upon:
the prosecutor’s statements to the court that there was no agreement as to expungement;
the use of the word “drop” in the plea offer letter;
the lack of a Rule 585 order or nolle prosse request in the record; and
the fact that Garanin did not file a habeas corpus petition.
ZALMA OPINION
Mr. Garanin was lucky, the plea agreement offered to him eliminated the need to go to trial over a five year felony of insurance fraud where the evidence against him was overwhelming and he only had to serve 30 days. He tried to clear his record by a motion to expunge instead of thanking the prosecutors for their kindness to him. His insult appropriately failed. Insurance fraud is a serious crime and it should be prosecuted vigorously rather than change it to a misdemeanor to avoid the need to go to trial. Garanin avoided trial and five years in prison and insulted the court system by trying expungement, failed, and then took the issue up on appeal only to, properly, fail again.
Tumblr media
© 2021 – Barry Zalma Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders.
He also serves as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business.
He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]. Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine/ACE Legend Award. Over the last 53 years Barry Zalma has dedicated his life to insurance, insurance claims and the need to defeat insurance fraud. He has created the following library of books and other materials to make it possible for insurers and their claims staff to become insurance claims professionals.
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma;  Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/ Read posts from Barry Zalma at https://parler.com/profile/Zalma/posts; and the last two issues of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/  podcast now available at https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/zalma-on-insurance/id1509583809?uo=4
0 notes
hermajestythebomb · 6 years
Text
History of Gay Rights in Mexico
based on this thread which is based on this thread 
1542: Hernan Cortés started his campaign in Cholula (now Cholula, Puebla). At that time, Amerindian homosexuality behavior varied from region to region. Cortés on behalf of his majesty the King of Spain started talking to the locals (hacer un parlamento, translated from old Spanish) and established rules against sodomy and punished this act which also includes rules against cannibalism, human sacrifice and other Gods idolatry.
1569: An official inquisition was created in Mexico City by Philip II of Spain. Same-sex sexual acts were a prime concern, and the Inquisition inflicted stiff fines, spiritual penances, public humiliations, and floggings for what it deemed to be sexual sins.
1821: Mexican independence from Spain brought an end to the Inquisition and colonial homosexual persecution.
1871: The intellectual influence of the French Revolution and the brief French occupation of Mexico (1862–67) resulted in the adoption of the Napoleonic Code. This meant that sexual conduct in private between adults (regardless of gender) ceased to be a criminal matter.
1901: (20 November) Mexico City police raided an affluent drag ball, arresting 42 men (19 of which were cross-dressing). One was released, allegedly a close relative of President Porfirio Díaz. The resulting scandal, known as the "Dance of the 41 Maricones", received widespread press coverage.
1959: Mayor Ernesto Uruchurtu closed all gay bars in Mexico City under the guise of "cleaning up vice" (or reducing its visibility).
1971: The Homosexual Liberation Front (Frente de Liberación Homosexual), one of the first LGBT groups in Latin America, was organized in response to the firing of a Sears employee because of his (allegedly) homosexual orientation.
1979: The country's first LGBT pride parade was held in Mexico City.
1982: Max Mejía, Pedro Preciado, and Claudia Hinojosa became the first openly gay politicians to run for seats in the Congress of Mexico.
1991: Mexico hosted a meeting of the International Gay and Lesbian Association, the first meeting of the association outside Europe.
1997: Patria Jiménez, a lesbian activist was selected for proportional representation in the Chamber of Deputies of Mexico, representing the left-wing Party of the Democratic Revolution.
1999: (August): The first meeting of lesbians and lesbian feminists was held in Mexico City. From this meeting, evolved an organized effort for expanded LGBT rights in the nation's capital.
(2 September): Mexico City passed an ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, the first of its kind in the country.
2000: Enoé Uranga, an openly lesbian politician, proposed a bill that would have legalized same-sex civil unions in Mexico City. The local Legislature, however, decided not to enact the bill after widespread opposition from right-wing groups.
2003: (29 April): A federal anti-discrimination law was passed and a national council immediately created to enforce it.
(July): Amaranta Gómez became the first transgender woman to run for a seat in the Congress of Mexico.
2004: (13 March): Amendments to the Mexico City Civil Code that allow transgender people to change the gender and name on their birth certificates, took effect.
2006: (9 November): Mexico City legalized same-sex civil unions
2007: (11 January): The northern state of Coahuila legalized same-sex civil unions.
(31 January): The nation's first same-sex civil union ceremony was performed in Saltillo, Coahuila
2008: (September): The Mexico City Legislative Assembly made it easier for transgender people to change their gender on their birth certificates.
Float with Aztec Eagle Warrior theme at 2009 LGBT Pride Parade in Mexico City.
2009: (March): Miguel Galán, from the defunct Social Democratic Party, became the first openly gay politician to run for mayor in the country.
(21 December): Mexico City's Legislative Assembly passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, loan applications by same-sex couples, inheritance from a same-sex partner, and the sharing of insurance policies by same-sex couples. Eight days later, Mayor Marcelo Ebrard signed the bill into law.
2010: (4 March): The same-sex marriage law took effect in Mexico City.
(5 August): The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, the highest federal court in the country, voted 9–2 to uphold the constitutionality of Mexico City's same-sex marriage reform. Four days later, it upheld the city's adoption law.
2011: (June): The Constitution of Mexico was amended to prohibit discrimination based on, among other factors, sexual orientation.
(24 November): The Coahuila
Supreme Court
struck down the state's law barring same-sex couples from adopting, urging the state's Legislature to amend the adoption law as soon as possible. (28 November): Two same-sex couples were married in Kantunilkín, Quintana Roo, after discovering that Quintana Roo's Civil Code does not specify gender requirements for marriage.
2012: (January): Same-sex marriages were suspended in Quintana Roo pending legal review by Luis González Flores, the Secretary of State of Quintana Roo.
(April): Roberto Borge Angulo, the Governor of Quintana Roo, annulled the two same-sex marriages performed in Kantunilkín.
(3 May): Luis González Flores reversed Borge Angulo's annulments in a decision allowing for future same-sex marriages to be performed in Quintana Roo.
(5 December): The Supreme Court in Mexico City struck down a Oaxaca state law that had limited marriage to one man and one woman for purposes of procreation.
2013: (27 February): The first same-sex marriage licenses were issued in the state of Colima after officials cited the Federal Constitution, which prohibits discrimination due to sexual orientation, and the Supreme Court ruling that struck down Oaxaca state's same-sex marriage ban. Although same-sex marriage was not officially law in Colima, a same-sex couple could apply for and receive a marriage license.
(22 March): The first same-sex marriage occurred in Oaxaca.
(14 June): The Second Federal District Court of the State of Colima ruled that the State Civil Code was unconstitutional in limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
(1 July): The Third District Court of the State of Yucatán ruled that two petitioners were able to marry. Martha Góngora, director of the civil registry of the state, said the decision would be reviewed and might be returned to the court. Jorge Fernández Mendiburu, defense counsel in the case, indicated that if the registrar refused to complete the marriage, the case would be brought before the Supreme Court of Justice with a request for the state law limiting marriage to one man and one woman to be declared unconstitutional.
(4 July): The state of Colima amended its Constitution to allow for same-sex civil unions.
(8 August): Two men became the first same-sex couple to legally marry in the state of
Yucatán (23 December): Campeche legalized same-sex and opposite-sex civil unions.
2014: (1 January): A law allowing for same-sex civil unions in Jalisco took effect.
(11 February): The Congress of Coahuila legalized adoption by same-sex couples, by repealing Article 385-7 of the Civil Code.
(21 March): Mexico declared, by presidential decree, May 17 as the National Day Against Homophobia.
.(1 September): The Congress of Coahuila legalized same-sex marriage, by changing the Civil Code of the state.
(13 November): The Legislative Assembly of Mexico City approved a gender identity law, making the process for transgender people to change gender much quicker and simpler.
2015: (26 February): The Constitutional Court of the State of Yucatán announced that it will decide on 2 March whether state prohibitions against same-sex marriage are in violation of the Federal Constitution and international agreements.
(2 March): The Constitutional Court of Yucatán dismissed the appeal for constitutional action to change the Civil Code. Supporters of amending the code promised to appeal the decision.(3 June): The Supreme Court of Justice of the nation released a "jurisprudential thesis" expanding the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex couples as state laws restricting it were deemed unconstitutional and discriminatory.
(12 June): The state of Chihuahua legalized same-sex marriage and adoption after the Governor announced that his administration would no longer oppose same-sex marriages within the state. The order was effective immediately.
(10 July): The Governor of Guerrero instructed civil agencies to approve same-sex marriage licenses.
(21 July): The municipality of Santiago de Querétaro stopped enforcing Querétaro's same-sex marriage ban and began allowing same-sex couples to marry in the municipality.
(11 August): The Mexican Supreme Court ruled, in a 9-1 decision, that Campeche's ban on same-sex couples adopting children was unconstitutional.
(7 September): The Congress of Michoacán legalized domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.
(22 December): Same-sex marriage became legal in the state of Nayarit.
2016: (26 January): The Mexican Supreme Court unanimously struck down Jalisco's same-sex marriage ban.
(5 May): Colima repealed its civil union law as well as its constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
(12 May): The Congress of Jalisco complied with the Supreme Court decision and amended the state Civil Code.
(17 May): The Mexican President, Enrique Peña Nieto, announced that he has signed an initiative to amend Article 4 of the Mexican Constitution, which would legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.
(20 May): Same-sex marriage became legal in Campeche after the state Congress legalized such marriages in a 34-1 vote 10 days prior.
(12 June): Same-sex marriage and adoption became legal in the state of Colima.
(23 June): A bill allowing for legal same-sex marriages and adoptions came into effect in Michoacán.
(5 July): A reform to the Constitution of Morelos, which legalized same-sex marriage and adoption in the state, took effect.
(11 September): The head of Veracruz's adoption agency announced that same-sex couples may adopt children jointly in the state.
(18 September): The municipality of San Pedro Cholula, located in the state of Puebla, announced that any same-sex couple who wishes to marry may do so in the municipality.
(23 September): The Mexican Supreme Court finalized the ruling in the adoption case against Campeche and issued a nationwide jurisprudence which binds all lower court judges to rule in favor of same-sex couples seeking adoption and parental rights.
(26 September): The state of Campeche lifted its same-sex adoption ban.
2017: (12 January): A civil union law took effect in the state of Tlaxcala.
(26 February): It was announced by the El Mañana that three municipalities in the state of Tamaulipas are marrying same-sex couples without requiring them to receive a court order beforehand.
(26 April): The head of Querétaro's adoption agency confirmed that same-sex couples may adopt in the state.
(31 May): The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the March 2015 Yucatán Constitutional Court ruling.
(11 July): The Supreme Court struck down Chiapas' same-sex marriage ban, legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.
(13 July): The Michoacán Congress approved a gender identity law.
(20 July): A gender identity law is approved in the state of Nayarit.
(1 August): The Supreme Court unanimously struck down Puebla's ban on same-sex marriage.
275 notes · View notes