fish ball recipe

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed likely Wednesday to uphold Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The justices' decision, not expected for several months, could affect similar laws enacted by another 25 states and a range of other efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which restrooms they can use. The case is being weighed by a conservative-dominated court after a presidential election in which Donald Trump and his allies promised to roll back protections for transgender people. The Biden administration's top Supreme Court lawyer warned a decision favorable to Tennessee also could be used to justify nationwide restrictions on transgender health care for minors. Supporters of transgender rights rally Wednesday outside the Supreme Court in Washington. In arguments that lasted more than two hours, five of the six conservative justices voiced varying degrees of skepticism over arguments made by the administration and Chase Strangio, the ACLU lawyer for Tennessee families challenging the ban. Chief Justice John Roberts, who voted in the majority in a 2020 case in favor of transgender rights, questioned whether judges, rather than lawmakers, should weigh in on a question of regulating medical procedures, an area usually left to the states. "The Constitution leaves that question to the people's representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor," Roberts said in an exchange with Strangio. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion in 2020, said nothing during the arguments. The court's three liberal justices seemed firmly on the side of the challengers, but it's not clear that any conservatives will go along. People attend a rally March 31, 2023, as part of a Transgender Day of Visibility, near the Capitol in Washington. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back against the assertion that the democratic process would be the best way to address objections to the law. She cited a history of laws discriminating against others, noting that transgender people make up less than 1% of the U.S. population, according to studies. There are an estimated 1.3 million adults and 300,000 adolescents ages 13 to 17 who identify as transgender, according the UCLA law school's Williams Institute. "Blacks were a much larger part of the population and it didn't protect them. It didn't protect women for whole centuries," Sotomayor said in an exchange with Tennessee Solicitor General Matt Rice. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she saw some troubling parallels between arguments made by Tennessee and those advanced by Virginia and rejected by a unanimous court, in the 1967 Loving decision that legalized interracial marriage nationwide. Quoting from that decision, Jackson noted that Virginia argued then that "the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, the court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature." ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio, left, and plaintiff Joaquin Carcano address reporters after a June 25, 2018, hearing in Winston-Salem, N.C., on their lawsuit challenging the law that replaced North Carolina's "bathroom bill." Justice Samuel Alito repeatedly pressed Strangio, the first openly transgender lawyer to argue at the nation's highest court, about whether transgender people should be legally designated as a group that's susceptible to discrimination. Strangio answered that being transgender does fit that legal definition, though he acknowledged under Alito's questioning there are a small number of people who de-transition. "So it's not an immutable characteristic, is it?" Alito said. Strangio did not retreat from his view, though he said the court did not have to decide the issue to resolve the case in his clients' favor. There were dueling rallies outside the court in the hours before the arguments. Speeches and music filled the air on the sidewalk below the court's marble steps. Advocates of the ban bore signs like "Champion God's Design" and "Kids Health Matters," while the other side proclaimed "Fight like a Mother for Trans Rights" and "Freedom to be Ourselves." Four years ago, the court ruled in favor of Aimee Stephens, who was fired by a Michigan funeral home after she informed its owner she was a transgender woman. The court held that transgender people, as well as gay and lesbian people, are protected by a landmark federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace. The Biden administration and the families and health care providers who challenged the Tennessee law urged the justices to apply the same sort of analysis that the majority, made up of liberal and conservative justices, embraced in the case four years ago when it found that "sex plays an unmistakable role" in employers' decisions to punish transgender people for traits and behavior they otherwise tolerate. Demonstrators against transgender rights protest Wednesday during a rally outside of the Supreme Court in Washington. The issue in the Tennessee case is whether the law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. Tennessee's law bans puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors, but allows the same drugs to be used for other purposes. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, called the law sex-based line drawing to ban the use of drugs that have been safely prescribed for decades and said the state "decided to completely override the views of the patients, the parents, the doctors." She contrasted the Tennessee law with one enacted by West Virginia, which set conditions for the health care for transgender minors, but stopped short of an outright ban. Gender-affirming care for youth is supported by every major medical organization, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association. Stay up-to-date on the latest in local and national government and political topics with our newsletter.Income Tax: Government announced reward for those giving information about tax evasion – DetailsBut alongside his stark warning of the threats facing Britain and its allies, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin said there would be only a “remote chance” Russia would directly attack or invade the UK if the two countries were at war. The Chief of the Defence Staff laid out the landscape of British defence in a wide-ranging speech, after a minister warned the Army would be wiped out in as little as six months if forced to fight a war on the scale of the Ukraine conflict. The admiral cast doubt on the possibility as he gave a speech at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) defence think tank in London. He told the audience Britain needed to be “clear-eyed in our assessment” of the threats it faces, adding: “That includes recognising that there is only a remote chance of a significant direct attack or invasion by Russia on the United Kingdom, and that’s the same for the whole of Nato.” Moscow “knows the response will be overwhelming”, he added, but warned the nuclear deterrent needed to be “kept strong and strengthened”. Sir Tony added: “We are at the dawn of a third nuclear age, which is altogether more complex. It is defined by multiple and concurrent dilemmas, proliferating nuclear and disruptive technologies and the almost total absence of the security architectures that went before.” The first nuclear age was the Cold War, while the second was “governed by disarmament efforts and counter proliferation”, the armed forces chief said. He listed the “wild threats of tactical nuclear use” by Russia, China building up its weapon stocks, Iran’s failure to co-operate with a nuclear deal, and North Korea’s “erratic behaviour” among the threats faced by the West. But Sir Tony said the UK’s nuclear arsenal is “the one part of our inventory of which Russia is most aware and has more impact on (President Vladimir) Putin than anything else”. Successive British governments had invested “substantial sums of money” in renewing nuclear submarines and warheads because of this, he added. The admiral described the deployment of thousands of North Korean soldiers on Ukraine’s border alongside Russian forces as the year’s “most extraordinary development”. He also signalled further deployments were possible, speaking of “tens of thousands more to follow as part of a new security pact with Russia”. Defence minister Alistair Carns earlier said a rate of casualties similar to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would lead to the army being “expended” within six to 12 months. He said it illustrated the need to “generate depth and mass rapidly in the event of a crisis”. In comments reported by Sky News, Mr Carns, a former Royal Marines colonel, said Russia was suffering losses of around 1,500 soldiers killed or injured a day. “In a war of scale – not a limited intervention, but one similar to Ukraine – our Army for example, on the current casualty rates, would be expended – as part of a broader multinational coalition – in six months to a year,” Mr Carns said in a speech at Rusi. He added: “That doesn’t mean we need a bigger Army, but it does mean you need to generate depth and mass rapidly in the event of a crisis.” Official figures show the Army had 109,245 personnel on October 1, including 25,814 volunteer reservists. Mr Carns, the minister for veterans and people, said the UK needed to “catch up with Nato allies” to place greater emphasis on the reserves. The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said Defence Secretary John Healey had previously spoken about “the state of the armed forces that were inherited from the previous government”. The spokesman said: “It’s why the Budget invested billions of pounds into defence, it’s why we’re undertaking a strategic defence review to ensure that we have the capabilities and the investment needed to defend this country.”fish ball recipe 。

Israel says rabbi who went missing in the UAE was killed govt arrests 3

Apple Stock Keeps Climbing. This Analyst Says Skepticism Is Overdone.

Michigan aims to cap lost season by beating Ohio StateGeraldo Rivera Apologizes to John Ramsey for 1997 Mock Trial of JonBenét Ramsey Case on His Talk Show