Supreme Being – Ateistet http://ateistet.org/ Tue, 14 Sep 2021 20:32:07 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.8 https://ateistet.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/icon-150x150.png Supreme Being – Ateistet http://ateistet.org/ 32 32 Judges have no robes https://ateistet.org/judges-have-no-robes/ https://ateistet.org/judges-have-no-robes/#respond Tue, 14 Sep 2021 19:00:47 +0000 https://ateistet.org/judges-have-no-robes/ The Supreme Court is facing a rule of law crisis on its own initiative. In a late-night order in early September, the court allowed a Texas law to come into force that bans the vast majority of abortions. The law is enforced by people authorized to prosecute anyone who assists with a prohibited abortion. Doctors, […]]]>

The Supreme Court is facing a rule of law crisis on its own initiative.

In a late-night order in early September, the court allowed a Texas law to come into force that bans the vast majority of abortions. The law is enforced by people authorized to prosecute anyone who assists with a prohibited abortion. Doctors, paying friends, and even Uber or Lyft drivers who drop pregnant women off at clinics are in danger. Defendants who lose could face huge damages and be forced to pay plaintiffs a premium of $ 10,000 or more. Last week, the Department of Justice sued Texas, challenging the constitutionality of the law.

Not only did the unsigned court order actually make Roe vs. Wade dead letter in Texas, upsetting nearly 50 years of established law, it also destabilized more than 200 years of judicial responsibility. The Supreme Court abdicated its singular duty to protect our constitutional rights – no matter how controversial they are – and gave credit to a law specifically designed to prevent the judiciary from doing its only job.

In July, the plaintiffs Whole Women’s Health c. Jackson called on the Supreme Court to prevent Texas’ near-categorical abortion ban from coming into effect as its legality was challenged. A 5 to 4 majority of the Court rejected this request. On September 1, in a single paragraph of reasoning, the Court argued that a patently unconstitutional law must be implemented while its legality is challenged because its unusual legislative scheme raises enough questions for plaintiffs to fail to meet. the legal standard for an injunction.

The court focused on the fact that the state had delegated law enforcement to members of the public rather than government actors. In other words, it was not technically the state illegally introducing huge barriers to access to abortion, they said with a wink, but rather the state deputizing and inciting individual vigilantes to introduce these barriers on its behalf.

Disconcertingly, the court accepted these procedural shenanigans and refused to subject Texas law to normal judicial review, apparently because Texas did not want it revised. Reasoning by Texas and the Supreme Court Strains Credulity: The Texas Legislature Seeks to Avoid Guilt for Violating the Rights of Its Residents by Outsourcing Its Illegal Activity to Uterine Guard Dogs , and the Court seeks to avoid culpability for allowing the violation to continue by hiding behind procedural loopholes.

Secular precedents make it clear that it is categorically the responsibility of the judiciary to say what the law is. Judges exist, in theory, to recognize and provide remedies against unlawful intrusions into rights. When a law conflicts with our fundamental rights, the court is supposed to say so and curb bad behavior – and it has many legal tools to do so.

The Supreme Court abdicated that responsibility by endorsing Texas’ cynical bypassing judicial review. In accepting the state’s plan, the court asked legislative bodies across the country that they could undermine bodily autonomy if they craft their laws properly. The effect is to declare that disadvantaged political groups, such as low-income people of color who want or need an abortion, have no rights that this Court is required to respect.

The Court’s relentless use of procedural flimflam to deny millions of legal rights has betrayed a shocking infidelity to the law. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent warned, “The Court should not simply ignore its constitutional obligations to protect not only women’s rights, but also the sanctity of its precedents and the rule of law. “. This self-induced tremor in the foundations of constitutional interpretation most immediately endangers the lives of millions of people in Texas who can become pregnant, as well as anyone who helps them terminate their pregnancy.

There is no reason to assume that it will end there. According to the reasoning of the court, its hands would be tied to stop the implementation of a law codifying segregation as long as a state outsources the execution to the public. We, residents of the United States who are governed but not protected by its laws, must now ask ourselves: which right will be next? And for whom? And if the Court does not exist to respect rights, why does it exist and why should it be respected?

This last question is perhaps radical. The behavior of the Court too. And the judiciary has no armies nor the threat of force to execute its judgments. It only has its reputation and its institutional legitimacy. He risks losing both when he behaves in deeply dishonorable and illegitimate ways. Like the emperor’s missing clothes, the Supreme Court risks exposing itself to a farce.


Source link

]]>
https://ateistet.org/judges-have-no-robes/feed/ 0
Texas bounty hunt abortion law could be on the books for a long time https://ateistet.org/texas-bounty-hunt-abortion-law-could-be-on-the-books-for-a-long-time/ https://ateistet.org/texas-bounty-hunt-abortion-law-could-be-on-the-books-for-a-long-time/#respond Fri, 10 Sep 2021 19:33:35 +0000 https://ateistet.org/texas-bounty-hunt-abortion-law-could-be-on-the-books-for-a-long-time/ September 11, 2021 WHEN The Texas legislature passed a law trying to ban abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy, many Supreme Court observers expected to be suspended because it contradicted the right to abortion, says in Deer vs. Wade, which the court has recognized for nearly 50 years. Instead, the Supreme Court, in a […]]]>

WHEN The Texas legislature passed a law trying to ban abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy, many Supreme Court observers expected to be suspended because it contradicted the right to abortion, says in Deer vs. Wade, which the court has recognized for nearly 50 years. Instead, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, refused to do so on procedural grounds. The law is in effect, which is obviously bad for women in Texas. But it’s also bad for the court itself and for the rule of law because, by their inaction, the majority justices allowed the US legal system to be hacked.

Listen to this story

Enjoy more audio and podcasts on ios Where Android.

Texas law is ingeniously horrible. Its new enforcement mechanism was devised by a former clerk of the late Antonin Scalia, a judge who died in 2016, to escape court scrutiny. Challenges to the constitutionality of a state law usually require someone to bring an action against state officials. Texas law makes this difficult, explicitly preventing Texas officials from enforcing it. Instead, anyone based anywhere in the country can sue a Texan who assists in providing an abortion after about six weeks, from the taxi driver or the relative who drove a woman to a clinic to receptionists. or the nurses who work there. To encourage them to do so, successful plaintiffs will have their legal fees paid and receive a reward of $ 10,000, imposed as a fine against the target of the lawsuit. Thus, abortion is prohibited without a single Texas Ranger getting involved.

The law does not allow complainants to prosecute women who have abortions, perhaps because directly targeting pregnant women is unpopular. But the effect is the same. While no one has yet used the law to sue and claim their reward, the fear of being sued means that abortion clinics in Texas have turned women down. One likely consequence is that more women will end up seeking more traumatic abortions later in other states. Abortion pills, mailed in, could in theory offer a way around the law. But Texas is one of 19 states that require a doctor’s presence when these medications, which can be safely taken at home, are ingested. And any doctor who encouraged an abortion in this way could now be prosecuted.

One of the principles of good legislation is that the rules should be both simple and enforceable. It’s neither. Conservative lawyers favored tort reform to make America less litigious. This principle is also superfluous. As John Roberts, the chief justice, said in his dissent, it would have been better if the court temporarily blocked the Texas law because it is so unusual.

The decision not to damage the Supreme Court. It’s hard to imagine the majority would have been so relaxed if Texas law had offered prizes to people suing gun shops and their employees after school shootings. The five majority judges are therefore exposed to charges of reasoned motivation, which is particularly troubling given that during its next term (which begins next month), the tribunal is expected to rule on a direct challenge to Roe deer —A 15-week abortion ban passed by the Mississippi state legislature.

It is still possible that the court will strike down the Texas law as unconstitutional. The easiest way would be for someone to successfully sue a lawsuit and then the target of that lawsuit to appeal. A lower court could take up the case and eventually go all the way to the Supreme Court. But it could take a year or more. The Justice Department plans to sue Texas, although it’s not clear that either will work. In the meantime, a law that takes away a fundamental choice of women will remain.

This is a bad result. A clear majority of Americans want abortion to be legal in the first trimester of pregnancy and illegal in the third, with exceptions when carrying the fetus to term would endanger a woman’s life. The country’s long-running wars against abortion cannot be solved by giving people $ 10,000 to sue a nurse.

This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline “Trouble de la cour”


Source link

]]>
https://ateistet.org/texas-bounty-hunt-abortion-law-could-be-on-the-books-for-a-long-time/feed/ 0
More migrants returned to Mexico after Supreme Court order restores Trump-era policies https://ateistet.org/more-migrants-returned-to-mexico-after-supreme-court-order-restores-trump-era-policies/ https://ateistet.org/more-migrants-returned-to-mexico-after-supreme-court-order-restores-trump-era-policies/#respond Tue, 07 Sep 2021 19:03:24 +0000 https://ateistet.org/more-migrants-returned-to-mexico-after-supreme-court-order-restores-trump-era-policies/ A Supreme Court order restoring the Trump-era “stay in Mexico” policy is already having an effect on the border, with border patrol officials telling Fox News they have started turning away more migrants trying to enter the United States A source from the border patrol in La Joya, Texas, told Fox News they are now […]]]>

A Supreme Court order restoring the Trump-era “stay in Mexico” policy is already having an effect on the border, with border patrol officials telling Fox News they have started turning away more migrants trying to enter the United States

A source from the border patrol in La Joya, Texas, told Fox News they are now returning all families to Mexico, unless they have a child under the age of 1 or a migrant is pregnant.

REMAINING COURT IN MEXICO WINS VICTORY FOR TEXAS AND MISSOURI ON BIDEN ADMIN

In a 6-3 decision last month, the court dismissed a request by the Biden administration to stop a Federal Court ruling ordering the administration to reinstate the policy – officially called the Migrant Protection Protocols – which was a major 2019 border security program that held migrants back. in Mexico while they awaited their hearings.

Critics have called the policy, which has led to the establishment of tent courts across the border, cruel and dangerous for migrants. The Trump administration has said the policy ends captures and releases, reducing the pull factors that drive migrants north. Biden began dismantling the policy shortly after taking office and officially ended it in June as one of several steps the administration took to reverse President Donald Trump’s border policies.

Texas and Missouri have filed a lawsuit, arguing that ending the policy in June was both damaging to their states and in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

In the original ruling, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ordered the Biden administration to “apply and implement the MPP in good faith” until it is “legally rescinded” in accordance with the APA, and until the federal government has sufficient detention capacity to detain all the migrants concerned. compulsory detention.

SCOTUS ‘REMAIN IN MEXICO’ MARKS LAST IMMIGRATION DEFEAT FOR BIDEN ADMINISTRATION

In response to a question about the extent to which the MPP had been reestablished across the border, the Department of Homeland Security referred Fox News to its August statement after the Supreme Court ruling that said that he disagreed with the decision and would appeal, “DHS will comply with the order in good faith.”

“Along with interagency partners, DHS has begun to engage with the government of Mexico in diplomatic discussions regarding Migrant Protection Protocols (MPPs),” the statement said. “DHS remains committed to building a safe, orderly and humane immigration system that respects our laws and values.”

The reinstatement of the MPP would be in addition to the Biden administration’s renewal of Title 42 public health protections that allow for the rapid deportation of migrants to the southern border due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Biden administration had not applied Title 42 to unaccompanied children or many migrant families, but had removed some families and single adults because of the order.

About 45% of the more than 212,000 migrant encounters in July resulted in a Title 42 deportation, according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data.

The Biden administration has defended its strategy to tackle the border crisis, which includes a focus on “root causes” in Central America and the pursuit of smugglers, even as the number of border encounters has skyrocketed. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said the plan is working, but will take time, while accusing the Trump administration of shutting down legal asylum channels.

“We have a plan, we are executing our plan and it takes time,” he said last month.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Republicans blamed the rollback of Trump-era policies like the MPP and the building of a border wall – as well as pushing for citizenship pathways for illegal immigrants already in the country – for having fueled the influx of migrants and created a crisis at the border.

The Biden administration’s immigration policies suffered yet another legal blow last month when a federal court imposed a preliminary injunction on guidance from Immigration and Customs Officers (ICE) that dramatically reduced priorities arrest and deportation.


Source link

]]>
https://ateistet.org/more-migrants-returned-to-mexico-after-supreme-court-order-restores-trump-era-policies/feed/ 0
Column: Hope reigns supreme for Florida Gators as 2021 approaches https://ateistet.org/column-hope-reigns-supreme-for-florida-gators-as-2021-approaches/ https://ateistet.org/column-hope-reigns-supreme-for-florida-gators-as-2021-approaches/#respond Fri, 03 Sep 2021 19:19:50 +0000 https://ateistet.org/column-hope-reigns-supreme-for-florida-gators-as-2021-approaches/ It’s been 643 days since the Florida Gators last took the field in a packed house at Ben Hill Griffin Stadium. A year, nine months and four days ago to be exact. In a way, it seems a lot longer than that. Since then, the world has been shaken by a global pandemic which has […]]]>

It’s been 643 days since the Florida Gators last took the field in a packed house at Ben Hill Griffin Stadium. A year, nine months and four days ago to be exact.



Source link

]]>
https://ateistet.org/column-hope-reigns-supreme-for-florida-gators-as-2021-approaches/feed/ 0
Democrats say abortion is at stake in recall elections. But canceling the rights would not be easy https://ateistet.org/democrats-say-abortion-is-at-stake-in-recall-elections-but-canceling-the-rights-would-not-be-easy/ https://ateistet.org/democrats-say-abortion-is-at-stake-in-recall-elections-but-canceling-the-rights-would-not-be-easy/#respond Wed, 01 Sep 2021 12:45:00 +0000 https://ateistet.org/democrats-say-abortion-is-at-stake-in-recall-elections-but-canceling-the-rights-would-not-be-easy/ SACRAMENTO, Calif. – As an election approaches to remove California Governor Gavin Newsom, abortion rights groups are warning Californians’ abortion rights are on the ballot. Newsom, a democrat, himself tweeted that “access to abortion” is at stake. “There is no doubt that if a Republican is elected, access to abortion in California will be restricted,” […]]]>

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – As an election approaches to remove California Governor Gavin Newsom, abortion rights groups are warning Californians’ abortion rights are on the ballot.

Newsom, a democrat, himself tweeted that “access to abortion” is at stake.

“There is no doubt that if a Republican is elected, access to abortion in California will be restricted,” Jodi Hicks, president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said at a press conference in July.

But that message is strategic and is more about motivating left-wing voters than politics, said Rob Stutzman, a Republican political strategist.

“There is no indication in the polls for this election that [abortion] is what Californians think of this election at all, ”Stutzman said. “It fits the type of campaign they’re running, which isn’t persuasion; it’s a motivation to participate. “

In reality, California has some of the strongest abortion protections in the country and restricting them would be difficult to accomplish for a replacement governor with only a little over a year remaining in office, with the opposition of one. predominantly democratic legislature – and the right to abortion enshrined in the state constitution.

While governors could veto legislation, set budget priorities, and enact regulations through state agencies, only small-scale changes would be possible and would almost exclusively affect women on Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid insurance program for low-income people.

“I don’t think abortion is going to be severely restricted in California,” said Laurie Sobel, associate director of women’s health policy for KFF. “It’s more subtle than just slashing the laws that are in place – it doesn’t support” the new progressive laws.

Restrictions enacted by other states – such as laws that require ultrasound scans before abortions or regulations that make it difficult to open abortion clinics – likely wouldn’t apply in California without a friendly legislature, a. Sobel said.

Yet reproductive rights groups have described Californians’ right to access abortion as threatened by the September 14 recall election. Newsom appeared with Planned Parenthood executives on Wednesday evening to say that California’s role as the standard-bearer for abortion rights is more important than ever as other states increasingly restrict access and that the United States Supreme Court will decide this year whether to maintain the seminal Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion at the national level.

None of the top four Republican recall candidates responded to calls and emails regarding their positions on abortion.

Larry Elder, a Tory radio host who is the leading replacement contender in most polls, has been most outspoken on the matter. He called abortion “murder” and Roe vs. Wade “one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever.” Businessman John Cox has called himself “pro-life” in previous campaigns, but said he would rather not talk about social issues, and State Assembly Member Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) has received approvals and positive reviews from anti-abortion groups. Former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer has said he supports the right to abortion.

Each registered voter will receive a ballot in the mail, although voters will also have options to vote in person. If Newsom is recalled in the September 14 election, his replacement would take office at the end of October and serve the remainder of Newsom’s tenure, until January 2023. A replacement could run for a regular four-year term in the November 2022 election. .

State law establishes a woman’s right to have an abortion, usually until a fetus can survive on its own. And the state’s constitution includes a right to privacy that the California Supreme Court says protects abortion, even if the US Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade. The state’s Supreme Court also struck down laws that limit abortion or require parental consent. State law requires every state-regulated health plan, public or private, to cover the procedure.

Yet abortion rights advocates argue that having a right doesn’t always mean being able to access treatment, and that an anti-abortion governor might find ways to make the procedure less accessible. Experts say there are three main ways for a replacement governor to restrict access:

  • Vetoing bills or budget items (the governor has veto power over the state budget) would be one of the most direct means. State Senator Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) this year introduced a bill to eliminate cost-sharing of abortion for Medi-Cal patients, who is awaiting a committee hearing before turning return to the Assembly for a final vote. She said she would still have introduced the measure under an anti-abortion administration, but that it would have been an “uphill battle” on all fronts.

Democrats, who have a qualified majority in both houses of the legislature, could override a governor’s veto with a two-thirds majority in both houses. The last time this happened was in 1980.

Susan Arnall, director of outreach and engagement at the Right to Life League, said an anti-abortion governor could help balance the Capitol by vetoing “anti-life” legislation, even if lawmakers end up overriding the veto. “It at least delays things. It slows down the process, and it helps,” she said.

  • Governors have broad power to change the way Medi-Cal, which covers about half of abortions in the state, funds abortion. For example, an anti-abortion governor could work through the Department of Health Services to set Medi-Cal’s reimbursement rates for abortion so low that no doctor could afford to perform the procedure. Or the governor could make the Medi-Cal payment process so difficult that providers wouldn’t care. These bureaucratic hurdles and others could add up, making it more difficult for a person to get an abortion as quickly as they need it, said Fabiola Carrión, acting director of reproductive and sexual health for the National Program of Health. health law. “This is of particular concern to people who live in central California and in rural areas” where patients have to travel long distances to find a provider. “Abortion is already an urgent service.”
  • At the end of the year, the Food and Drug Administration is expected to decide whether mifepristone, a prescription drug used in medical abortions, can continue to be delivered via telemedicine without seeing a provider in person – a service the agency tentatively approved this year. . If the FDA allows the telemedicine option to continue, it will require the state to update its Medi-Cal provider manual. A new governor could install a director in the Department of Health Services who doesn’t update the manual, and people registered with Medi-Cal who want a medical abortion may need to see their provider in person first.

“California already has abortion deserts in our own state,” Hicks said. Even a seemingly small barrier “always matters to someone trying to get services.”

Democratic consultant Rose Kapolczynski said the threat an anti-abortion governor could pose to abortion access is real, no matter how long he or she is in office. Newsom’s replacement is expected to run for office immediately, she said, prompting great things to be done in the first year.

“The Newsom team knows they must do everything in their power to motivate Democrats to send their ballots, and they are talking to these voters about the issues that matter most to them,” Kapolczynski said. “It is completely legitimate to talk about what happens if the recall is successful.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an independent editorial service of the California Health Care Foundation.



Source link

]]>
https://ateistet.org/democrats-say-abortion-is-at-stake-in-recall-elections-but-canceling-the-rights-would-not-be-easy/feed/ 0
Boston bans evictions, creates foreclosure prevention fund – NBC Boston https://ateistet.org/boston-bans-evictions-creates-foreclosure-prevention-fund-nbc-boston/ https://ateistet.org/boston-bans-evictions-creates-foreclosure-prevention-fund-nbc-boston/#respond Tue, 31 Aug 2021 22:19:28 +0000 https://ateistet.org/boston-bans-evictions-creates-foreclosure-prevention-fund-nbc-boston/ Boston declared a moratorium on evictions in the city on Tuesday and is working to set up a $ 5 million fund to prevent foreclosures, officials said. The move comes less than a week after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal moratorium on evictions, allowing evictions to resume. “The loss of federal eviction protections […]]]>

Boston declared a moratorium on evictions in the city on Tuesday and is working to set up a $ 5 million fund to prevent foreclosures, officials said.

The move comes less than a week after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal moratorium on evictions, allowing evictions to resume.

“The loss of federal eviction protections and the ongoing pandemic have put our most vulnerable neighbors at risk of losing their homes,” Mayor Kim Janey said in an announcement video.

The moratorium on evictions goes into effect immediately, temporarily preventing tenants from being evicted by landlords and landlords, according to a city announcement, while details on the Foreclosure Prevention Fund will be released next week.

The Supreme Court has blocked the temporary ban on President Biden’s deportations, put in place due to the coronavirus pandemic.

The fund will help eligible homeowners with late payments like mortgages, insurance and condominium fees pay for these costs using federal COVID relief funding.

“The city is already putting rent relief in the hands of residents hit hard by the pandemic, and we are doing it faster than the Commonwealth and the country as a whole,” Janey said, citing an injection of $ 50 million. dollars in the city’s rental fund. this March.

The announcement cited the rise of the delta variant of COVID, which is fueling an increase in the number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths in Boston, Massachusetts and the United States.

Earlier Tuesday, Janey announced a $ 9.4 million investment in COVID relief funds for restaurants and small businesses in Boston.

“This program aims to help Boston’s economy turn around by providing incentives for our workers and ensuring our business owners have all the resources they need for a successful reopening,” Janey said in a statement.

Restaurant owners can apply for $ 5,000 to cover business expenses like rent and wages, while restaurants whose employees receive tips can apply for grants of $ 15,000 to increase their wages to 12.75 $ per hour. The city will also offer retention bonuses of $ 900, as well as tuition assistance for colleges and training programs.

The Small Business Assistance Fund reopens a fund launched last year, offering up to $ 20,000 to small businesses by covering debts and supporting investments.

Those interested in applying can visit boston.gov/small-business starting Wednesday, September 8.

With $ 435 million in federal funding earmarked for Boston as part of the COVID-19 relief program, Representative Stephen Lynch criticizes service cuts at the MBTA.


Source link

]]>
https://ateistet.org/boston-bans-evictions-creates-foreclosure-prevention-fund-nbc-boston/feed/ 0
Supreme Court blocks federal eviction ban, South Florida tenants affected – NBC 6 South Florida https://ateistet.org/supreme-court-blocks-federal-eviction-ban-south-florida-tenants-affected-nbc-6-south-florida/ https://ateistet.org/supreme-court-blocks-federal-eviction-ban-south-florida-tenants-affected-nbc-6-south-florida/#respond Fri, 27 Aug 2021 21:28:32 +0000 https://ateistet.org/supreme-court-blocks-federal-eviction-ban-south-florida-tenants-affected-nbc-6-south-florida/ The Supreme Court has blocked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from enforcing the federal moratorium on tenant evictions. The ban, put in place earlier this month, was overturned after a group of homeowners challenged whether the CDC had the power to issue such a ban. The latest moratorium applied only in counties with […]]]>

The Supreme Court has blocked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from enforcing the federal moratorium on tenant evictions.

The ban, put in place earlier this month, was overturned after a group of homeowners challenged whether the CDC had the power to issue such a ban.

The latest moratorium applied only in counties with high rates of coronavirus transmission, such as Miami-Dade County and Broward County. It was to end in October.

“In South Florida, there will be no special eviction protections for tenants,” said Jeffrey Hittleman.

Hittleman is a lawyer with the Senior Citizen Law Project of Coast to Coast Legal Aid of South Florida. He says evictions can now proceed through the courts.

Earlier this month, Broward County reported more than 2,200 pending evictions. The latest figures presented to the Miami-Dade Commission show more than 4,300 in Miami-Dade.

Hittleman says he expects the number of pending evictions to increase.

“It has created a lot of uncertainty and people who are behind on rent, threatened with eviction, are trying to make plans,” Hittleman said.

Her advice to tenants is to ask for rental assistance.

“Ask for rental aid. There is money for rent assistance, ”he said.

Federal rent assistance is distributed by state and local governments. Miami-Dade and Broward counties have both received around $ 60 million in federal rent assistance funds so far.

Hittleman says securing the funds can be a slow process at times, but it’s one of the last options for tenants in need.

“We encountered difficulties in preparing the online application, obtaining all the necessary documents. We also saw some challenges in processing time, ”Hittleman said.

NBC 6 Responds previously reported that a large chunk of these funds took a long time to come out.

Miami-Dade County has contributed about 57% of its funds, while Broward County is about 21%.

Broward County told us they have hired additional staff to help process requests. These additional staff will focus their efforts on tenants who submitted applications in April, May and June, a representative said.

You can find more information about rental assistance in your area below:

Broward County Rental Aid

Miami-Dade County Rental Assistance

Our Florida rental assistance


Source link

]]>
https://ateistet.org/supreme-court-blocks-federal-eviction-ban-south-florida-tenants-affected-nbc-6-south-florida/feed/ 0
AG’s mask lawsuit against Columbia to go to SC Supreme Court https://ateistet.org/ags-mask-lawsuit-against-columbia-to-go-to-sc-supreme-court/ https://ateistet.org/ags-mask-lawsuit-against-columbia-to-go-to-sc-supreme-court/#respond Tue, 24 Aug 2021 20:50:23 +0000 https://ateistet.org/ags-mask-lawsuit-against-columbia-to-go-to-sc-supreme-court/ Supreme Court of South Carolina Tracy glantz tglantz@thestate.com The South Carolina Supreme Court will consider the lawsuit of Republican State Attorney General Alan Wilson against the City of Columbia mask warrant for elementary and middle schools. Wilson filed a lawsuit Aug. 19 and sought original jurisdiction with the state’s Supreme Court, a ruling that attempts […]]]>

title=

Supreme Court of South Carolina

tglantz@thestate.com

The South Carolina Supreme Court will consider the lawsuit of Republican State Attorney General Alan Wilson against the City of Columbia mask warrant for elementary and middle schools.

Wilson filed a lawsuit Aug. 19 and sought original jurisdiction with the state’s Supreme Court, a ruling that attempts to bypass the lower court system. On Monday, the state’s highest court said it would accept the attorney general’s lawsuit.

“We grant the original jurisdiction request and the request to expedite consideration of this case,” the state Supreme Court said in the order. The court will hear oral arguments on the case at 10 a.m. on August 31.

The order noted that the city of Columbia had consented to the state Supreme Court taking the case directly and the case being expedited. The order also said the state municipal association, the City of Charleston and the South Carolina Education Association would file additional submissions in the case.

Columbia City Council recently passed a measure that requires students and teachers at 43 elementary and secondary schools and daycares in the city to wear masks, as cases of COVID-19 rose sharply in South Carolina last month . The city’s move came despite a one-year law, called a conditional clause, put in the state budget by lawmakers, which prevents schools from spending state funds on mask mandates.

The one-year budget law reads: “No school district, or any of its schools, may use funds allocated or authorized under this law to require its students and / or employees to wear face masks in their homes. one of its educational institutions. This prohibition extends to the announcement or application of such a policy.

Wilson lawsuit says attorney general wants state Supreme Court to “resolve a dispute over the supervisory effect of a legislative provision regarding mask requirements so that all jurisdictions are aware of the law which governs ”.

The attorney general’s office said in an Aug. 19 statement that it intended the lawsuit “to apply to all towns, cities, counties and school boards that have adopted or are seeking to pass mask warrants.” .

Richland County Council also passed an ordinance requiring elementary and middle schools in unincorporated areas of the county to require masks for students and teachers. The Richland School District One board also voted to require masks in schools.

The attorney general insisted that the state’s one-year law is clear when it comes to K-12 schools.

“While we recognize that the city is acting out of genuine concern for the spread of the COVID-19 virus and its variants, it cannot do so contrary to the law of this state,” the lawsuit said. “The condition is pretty clear that masks are not to be government mandated for schools in this state. “

City officials, meanwhile, said they have a constitutional right to protect young people. People under the age of 12 are not eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine.

“We need the Supreme Court to rule on this, and I’m sure the Supreme Court will support our position that it is both a constitutional and statutory right for municipal governments to protect health. and the safety of their citizens, ”said Columbia city councilor. Howard Duvall, the former director of the state Municipal Association, said Aug. 19.

Monday, the Ministry of Health and Environmental Control of the State announced 3,648 new cases of COVID throughout the state.

Chris Trainor has worked for newspapers in South Carolina for over 16 years, including previous appearances at (Greenwood) Index-Journal and (Columbia) Free Times. He is the recipient of numerous South Carolina Press Association awards including accolades in column writing, government reporting, profile writing, food writing, election coverage and more.



Source link

]]>
https://ateistet.org/ags-mask-lawsuit-against-columbia-to-go-to-sc-supreme-court/feed/ 0
Kentucky parents divided over decision to hide kids from school https://ateistet.org/kentucky-parents-divided-over-decision-to-hide-kids-from-school/ https://ateistet.org/kentucky-parents-divided-over-decision-to-hide-kids-from-school/#respond Tue, 24 Aug 2021 03:13:00 +0000 https://ateistet.org/kentucky-parents-divided-over-decision-to-hide-kids-from-school/ Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear is canceling his mandate as a mask for schools, he said Monday afternoon. It comes after the Kentucky Supreme Court overturned a temporary injunction that blocked laws designed to limit the governor’s executive power. Public schools still require masks, and some parents have said they’re okay with that. Regarding COVID-19 guidelines, […]]]>

Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear is canceling his mandate as a mask for schools, he said Monday afternoon. It comes after the Kentucky Supreme Court overturned a temporary injunction that blocked laws designed to limit the governor’s executive power.

Public schools still require masks, and some parents have said they’re okay with that.

Regarding COVID-19 guidelines, Boone County parent Aaron Gillum said he believes every school is different. He believes decisions should be based on the circumstances, even though masks are required in public schools, as regulated by the Kentucky Board of Education.

“What I’m encouraging is because of Bill 1 that the Supreme Court adopted which basically grants the rights to each of our school boards, listen to your parents,” said Gillum. “Do your parents want masks or do they want a choice? What kind of security measures do they want? Listen to them and formulate an HB1 plan.

Beshear was considering a return to his statewide mask tenure due to the state’s increase in COVID-19 cases, but since the state’s Supreme Court voted to limit his powers , he said the decision was up to the legislature.

“Ultimately their call, and they can see all the information and make the best decision they can.” he said at a press conference Monday night. “If it was still under my authority, we would have to watch over the next two weeks and if we continue to see the acceleration of hospitalizations, I would make the decision to do so. “

As parents and lawmakers debate the subject of masks in schools, some have said there is still a concern if schools walk away.

“(My) only concern is that they can’t be vaccinated and adults are carriers even though we are vaccinated,” said Clifford Lickert, parent of Newport.

Elementary and middle school students cannot be vaccinated due to their age.

“He can be transferred,” Lickert said. “She might not catch him from the same school, but he could still catch the virus just because she brought it from another child.”

A federal hearing was scheduled for Tuesday in northern Kentucky on the mandate for school masks in private schools, but that will likely not be necessary now, as private schools will now be able to set their own rules regarding students wearing masks.


Source link

]]>
https://ateistet.org/kentucky-parents-divided-over-decision-to-hide-kids-from-school/feed/ 0
The way Pori Moni is treated is a gross violation of human rights: Sultana Kamal https://ateistet.org/the-way-pori-moni-is-treated-is-a-gross-violation-of-human-rights-sultana-kamal/ https://ateistet.org/the-way-pori-moni-is-treated-is-a-gross-violation-of-human-rights-sultana-kamal/#respond Sun, 22 Aug 2021 17:26:28 +0000 https://ateistet.org/the-way-pori-moni-is-treated-is-a-gross-violation-of-human-rights-sultana-kamal/ Numerical Star Ratio Sun Aug 22, 2021 11:26 PM Lawyer Sultana Kamal’s rights activist. Photo file “> Lawyer Sultana Kamal’s rights activist. Photo file Sultana Kamal, a prominent human rights activist, said today that what is being done to actress Pori Moni is a gross violation of human rights. She made the remark after virtually […]]]>

Lawyer Sultana Kamal’s rights activist. Photo file

“>



Lawyer Sultana Kamal’s rights activist. Photo file

Sultana Kamal, a prominent human rights activist, said today that what is being done to actress Pori Moni is a gross violation of human rights.

She made the remark after virtually attending a citizens’ rally held in front of the National Shahbag Museum in the capital, held this afternoon to demand justice for Pori Moni under the banner of “Outrageous Citizens”.

For all the latest news, follow the Daily Star’s Google News channel.

Sultana Kamal said: “Pori Moni’s request for bail was not heard fairly. His lawyer was not allowed to request bail or speak to his client. This is a blatant violation of human rights.

“Misogyny has entered every nook and cranny of society,” she added.

Human rights activist Khushi Kabir said: “A citizen of the country cannot be treated as Pori Moni was or arrested as she was.

She demanded the immediate release of the actress.

The protest program brought together activists, including producers, artists, teachers, publishers and writers.


Source link

]]>
https://ateistet.org/the-way-pori-moni-is-treated-is-a-gross-violation-of-human-rights-sultana-kamal/feed/ 0