México, DF.- Esta mañana, en el Bosque de Chapultepec de la Ciudad de México se realizó la primeracarrera de novias, en la cual lucieron sus vestidosblancos, con ramo en mano, coronas y tenis.
A las 7 y media de la mañana se dio la salida para esta peculiar carrera, en donde corrieron novias de todo tipo. Más de mil novias participaron en este evento, el cual se dividió en dos categorías: casadas y solteras.
En la categoría de las casadas, Rebeca Escobar quedó en primer lugar, mientras que las solteras el triunfo fue para Hortencia Pérez.
Quien se llevó la admiración fue María Esther Agüero, de 53 años, quien a través del “aplausómetro” de las y los asistentes se llevó el primer lugar al mejor vestido de novia.
Además se realizó una rifa de 70 mil pesos, el cual será utilizado para cubrir los gastos de boda de la ganadora.
GUADALAJARA, JALISCO (20/JUL/2015).- Revisa lo más importante del 20 de julio en México en este resumen de noticias publicadas a través de los sitios web de los medios que conforman los Periódicos Asociados en Red.
A partir de este lunes, la Ciudad de México cuenta con un nuevo servicio de transportación turística cuyo objetivo es robustecer la oferta de dicho rubro de la capital.
COAHUILA
Desmantelan antena de radiocomunicación clandestina
La Comisión Estatal de Seguridad dio a conocer el descubrimiento y desmantelamiento de una antena de repetición, presuntamente utilizada por miembros de la delincuencia organizada y que daba servicio a las regiones Norte, Cinco Manantiales y algunos municipios de la Carbonífera.
GUERRERO
Peña Nieto critica soluciones populistas a problemas del país
En su cumpleaños número 49, el Presidente Enrique Peña Nieto criticó a quienes plantean soluciones simplistas y populistas a los problemas sociales y económicos que enfrenta el país, porque en el fondo -dijo- esos planteamientos entrañan una enorme irresponsabilidad.
Un choque a pedradas, tubazos y golpes entre dos grupos antagónicos de transportistas dejó un saldo de al menos 10 personas heridas e igual número de vehículos incendiados y vandalizados en pleno zócalo de Chilpancingo.
El gobernador electo de Michoacán, Silvano Aureoles Conejo, se reunió con el general Pedro Felipe Gurrola Ramírez, mando especial para la seguridad en el estado, con el propósito de conocer ”detalles” sobre el ataque armado que sufrieron habitantes de Ostula en Aquila, donde murió un niño de 12 años y hay cuatro lesionados más, entre ellos una niña de 6 años.
Con expresiones de amor por la tierra a la que representan, los oaxaqueños llenaron cada instante de algarabía en la rotonda de las Azucenas del Auditorio Guelaguetza, en donde cada visitante se llevó un pedazo de Oaxaca en esta primera edición del Lunes del Cerro 2015.
Two to three inches of rainfall is flooding roads from San Diego County to Arizona, even stranding some people in Southern California overnight due to flash flooding.
Eleven states from California to Wisconsin are under flood, snow and wind alerts as this storm slowly moves east.
Heavy rain is falling in Southern California, Nevada and Arizona Wednesday morning. Flash flood warnings were even issued in California and Arizona.
In the higher elevations, snow is falling Wednesday morning from the Sierra Nevada mountains in California to Montana.
By Wednesday night into Thursday morning, the storm will reach the Great Lakes and northern Plains, bringing heavy rain from Minneapolis to Chicago.
The southern Plains, from Oklahoma to Arkansas and into Tennessee, may also get hit by heavy rain as the southern part of the storm moves east Thursday. Some areas could see up to four inches.
Meanwhile, the north will see snow from the Dakotas to northern Minnesota and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
A winter storm warning was issued for northern Minnesota where up to nine inches of snow could fall. No major accumulation is expected for the Twin Cities.
The heaviest snow will be in the Rockies with 2 feet possible in southwestern Colorado. Snow is also possible in the mountains outside of Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas and Northern Nevada, where some areas could also see up to 16 inches.
El ministro Giuffra anunció la disolución del contrato en RPP Noticias. | Fuente: RPP
El ministro de Transportes y Comunicaciones, Bruno Giuffra, anunció en RPP Noticias un acuerdo para resolver el contrato de la construcción del Aeropuerto Internacional de Chinchero por mutuo disenso con el consorcio Kuntur Wasi . La obra no parará tras la decisión. El Estado iniciará el movimiento de tierras mientras se licita el terminal aéreo.
“Se ha acordado ir por la ruta del mutuo disenso. Tenemos que mirar adelante y llegar a un acuerdo con Kuntur Wasi. Nosotros avanzaremos con la parte inicial de la obra pública para el movimiento de tierras”, explicó Giuffra en Ampliación de Noticias.
¿Qué significa la decisión del Gobierno?
1. El consorcio Kuntur Wasi no participará en la construcción y operación del Aeropuerto Internacional de Chinchero (AIC)
2. En el menor plazo posible se iniciará el movimiento de tierras para la construcción del AIC. El movimiento de tierras se realizará bajo la modalidad de licitación de obra pública.
3. Mientras dure la etapa de Movimiento de Tierras, el gobierno estudiará la modalidad óptima para la construcción (obra civil) y operación del AIC, no retrasando de esta manera la ejecución de este proyecto.
El contrato se firmó el 4 de julio de 2014 por el Gobierno de Ollanta Humala. Le siguió una adenda en noviembre de 2016 donde el Estado asumiría US$ 265 millones de la construcción. Cuestionamientos a la obra, incluido uno de la Contraloría, propiciaron la renuncia de Martín Vizcarra al MTC el 22 de mayo.
El Gobierno puso fin a la controversia sobre el aeropuerto. | Fuente: Andina
El ministro anunció que el consorcio Kuntur Wasi ya no construirá el aeropuerto de Chinchero. | Fuente: Andina
On Friday, under international pressure to act, Mr. Bolsonaro ordered a military operation to help put out the fires, and vowed that his government would take a “zero tolerance” approach to enforcing environmental laws.
Ibama workers said in their letter that they welcomed that move but worried that it would amount to an empty promise if it is not backed by a “permanent, continuous, strategic and effective enforcement mechanism.” Absent that, they added, “the rates of destruction of the Amazon rainforest will not diminish.”
Mr. Bolsonaro’s administration has bristled at international criticism over the fires, arguing that Brazil has done more than many other countries to preserve its forests.
The Ibama employees warned that failing to double down on conservation efforts would pose a bigger threat to economic growth.
“Respecting environmental protection laws matters especially to the Brazilian economy, which relies heavily on the export of commodities,” they wrote. “The global clamor for the protection of the Brazilian Amazon and the risk that the country could face economic sanctions targeting its exports make that all the more relevant.”
A company that is a major buyer of Brazilian leather warned that it might cancel purchases because of concerns over the relationship between agribusiness and the fires devastating the Amazon.
This buyer, VF Corporation, includes well-known international brands like Timberland, The North Face, Eagle Creek, Dickies, Vans, Kipling and others. Brazil’s leather goods trade organization, C.I.C.B., wrote to Brazil’s minister of the environment, Ricardo Salles, on Tuesday, informing him of the warning.
José Fernando Bello, the president of C.I.C.B., wrote, “The need to contain damages to the country’s image in the international market, in connection to Amazon issues, is undeniable.”
It’s always tough to get at exactly why politicians change their positions over time. Often, it reflects political accommodation, preparing for an upcoming campaign. (Case in point: President Bill Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act, barring federal recognition of same-sex marriages, in September 1996 — a bill that Biden, along with most Democrats, supported.)
But it’s hard to see what Biden had to gain in 2012 when he stepped out in front of President Barack Obama to announce his support for same-sex marriage. “There’s no political barometer that would have told him to get ahead of the White House on this,” Pete Buttigieg, who is gay and ran for president this year, told us.
But societal views on these kinds of issues were beginning to change. Biden was very much part of that wave — and when it came to the Democratic Party, ahead of much of it.
Tell us more about that moment. Was it just an example of Biden being characteristically loose-lipped — or was it a reflection of a consistent role he played in the administration, as a proponent of L.G.B.T.Q. rights?
Obama and his White House were caught off-guard by this. They were, in fact, angered by the notion that Biden was trying to pre-empt the president on the issue, or even that he was trying to maneuver Obama to — I guess we shouldn’t say come out of the closet on the issue, should we? Well, just did. Biden’s aides initially issued a statement suggesting that he had been misunderstood, but he soon made clear that he wasn’t.
This is one of those cases where he was asked a question, had a view on the question, and answered it.
In this year’s Democratic primary, Biden wasn’t the first choice of most progressives, but he seemed to have generally earned the trust of many L.G.B.T.Q. rights advocates. Would you say there is true excitement there about his candidacy?
Yet, on Monday — after nearly three decades on the Supreme Court — Thomas finally articulated his approach to stare decisis, the principle that courts should generally follow the rules announced in past decisions.
Though Thomas dresses up his concurring opinion in Gamble with a few paragraphs that seem to soften his conclusion, the rule he ultimately articulates would give his court free reign to burn down any decision that five of its members do not like. It’s the kind of judicial arson one might expect from a justice who, after spending much of his career writing lone dissents that had little impact on his colleagues, now thinks he may have the votes to do things his way.
“When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple,” Thomas writes. “We should not follow it.” That may seem like a workable rule — how bad does a decision have to be before it is “demonstrably erroneous?” — but bear in mind that this rule comes from a man who has serious doubts about child labor laws.
There are many reasons why courts typically adhere to stare decisis. Stability in the law is an important virtue, for one thing. Legislatures will pass laws, companies will make investments, and individuals will shape their actions based on their assessment of existing precedents. If those precedents can be wiped away on a whim, all of this planning will be for naught. And many crucial investments may never happen because investors cannot plan for an uncertain future.
Stare decisis also helps depoliticize the law. When the Supreme Court’s political center of gravity changes — as it has shifted to the right under President Donald Trump — it’s tempting for the new majority to declare themselves victors and start pillaging old precedents they do not like. If power shifts again, the new majority might be equally tempted to retaliate, burning their vanquished foe’s decisions to the ground. That’s not just a recipe for instability, it’s a recipe for the kind of politics that turns Supreme Court nominations into existential fights between the two major political parties. Moreover, it’s a recipe for a court that strips power from the elected branches and claims it for itself.
But, perhaps most significantly, stare decisis is about modesty. Consider, for one moment, the fact that many provisions of the Constitution live in a state of ambiguity.
There is significant historical evidence, moreover, that many of these provisions were intentionally written to be ambiguous — either because the framers hoped that the courts would be able to transform vague principles into actionable rules, or because political compromises and the fear of a looming election prevented a supermajority of Congress from agreeing on clearer language.
As NYU law professor William Nelson wrote in a seminal book, “the debates on the Fourteenth Amendment were, in essence, debates about high politics and fundamental principles.” But they “did not reduce the vague, open-ended, and sometimes clashing principles used by the debaters to precise, carefully bounded legal doctrine.”
It is arrogant in the extreme, in other words, for a judge to assume that they alone have determined the one true meaning of a legal text as vague as the Constitution. The only way for the law to have any stability whatsoever is for judges to accept that the men and women who came before them typically acted in good faith to read difficult-to-interpret language. And the work of those men and women should not be idly cast aside simply because the current crop of justices think that they could do it better.
And yet, that’s more or less what Thomas says should happen in his Gamble opinion.
“By applying demonstrably erroneous precedent instead of the relevant law’s text—as the Court is particularly prone to do when expanding federal power or crafting new individual rights—the Court exercises ‘force’ and ‘will,’ two attributes the People did not give it,” Thomas writes. Instead, he would have his court, “restore our stare decisis jurisprudence to ensure that we exercise ‘mer[e] judgment,’ which can be achieved through adherence to the correct, original meaning of the laws we are charged with applying.”
Again, all of this rhetoric may seem reasonable in the abstract. But remember that it comes from a man who’s suggested that that decisions upholding a ban on whites-only lunch counters “drifted far from the original understanding of the” Constitution. Now, ask yourself if you want him to have an unchecked power to decide which decisions are “demonstrably erroneous?”
The Gamble case itself involves an unfortunate doctrine which the Supreme Court upholds as firmly grounded in precedent. The Fifth Amendment provides that no one shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” Yet the court’s “separate sovereigns” doctrine creates a massive hole in the Double Jeopardy Clause. Though the federal government may not prosecute someone twice for the same crime, and neither may any state, a state may prosecute someone and then the feds may do so again.
“Even in constitutional cases, a departure from precedent ‘demands special justification,’” Justice Samuel Alito writes for a majority of the Supreme Court. And that “means that something more than ‘ambiguous historical evidence’ is required before we will ‘flatly overrule a number of major decisions of this Court.’” Alito then spends the bulk of his opinion picking apart citations to very treatises and even older British judicial decisions, to show that they offer no clear basis for dismantling the separate sovereigns doctrine.
Notably, while Thomas used this case as a vehicle to rail against stare decisis, he also joined Alito’s opinion. Apparently a case involving a man unjustly punished twice for the same crime isn’t the kind of case “expanding federal power or crafting new individual rights” that gets under Thomas’ skin.
There are a few lines in Alito’s opinion that should trouble court-watchers who are hoping that the Supreme Court’s new conservative majority doesn’t share Thomas’ desire to light a whole range of precedents on fire. At one point, for example, Alito writes that “the strength of the case for adhering to [past] decisions grows in proportion to their ‘antiquity’” — suggesting that Alito may be perfectly happy to overrule newer decisions. There’s also an unconvincing passage where Alito defends the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which invigorated the Second Amendment based on historical evidence that is at least as ambiguous as the evidence raised in Gamble.
But Alito’s opinion is, at its heart, a statement that precedents are powerful and they shouldn’t be disregarded lightly. That’s a statement liberals should welcome from this Supreme Court — and it is very different than what Thomas says in his concurring opinion.
Un fuerte sismo producido el domingo por la noche en Arequipa causó la muerte de al menos nueve personas, según informó el Gobierno Regional de Arequipa.
Según el Instituto Geofísico del Perú (IGP), el movimiento telúrico más fuerte ocurrió a las 21:58 p.m. fue de 5,3 grados en la escala de Richter, ocho kilómetros de profundidad, y tuvo su epicentro en Maca, un distrito de Caylloma.
Tres de las muertes se registraron en el distrito de Achoma y las otras seis en Yanque (Caylloma). Además de las víctimas mortales, 40 personas han resultado heridas.
Entre las personas que perdieron la vida se encuentran una de 70 años y otra de 80, además de una menor de entre 9 y 10 años y un turista.
También se registraron sismos más leves por la madrugada del lunes, en la misma localidad a la 1:36 a.m., con una magnitud de 3,7 grados, y otro a las 5:35 a.m., de 3,6 grados.
La gobernadora Yamila Osorio señaló que las cifras de los daños podrían ser mayores y que esta información está siendo recabada por las autoridades locales.
Agregó que se espera la llegada de ayuda humanitaria de la capital pues los recursos de la región no son suficientes para atender la emergencia, acontecida en plena celebración del aniversario de Arequipa.
“Creemos que los daños son mucho más graves de lo que nos han informado. La noche nos ha dificultado poder brindar cifras más exactas”, dijo Osorio a Canal N, tras apelar a campañas de solidaridad para mitigar los efectos del desastre.
Ya salieron muy temprano, a las 4 am., módulos de vivienda hacia la zona. (…). Hemos coordinado con el jefe de Indeci (Instituto de Defensa Civil) para que también vaya trasladando los almacenes de la zona sur de regiones vecinas, porque necesitamos muchísimo apoyo. Los primeros reportes dicen que nuestros almacenes no van a ser suficientes para esta tragedia”, indicó a RPP.
El sismo generó la obstrucción de las vías que conectan a Chivay, capital de la provincia de Caylloma. En los alrededores se presentaron deslizamientos en los cerros y se obstaculizó el paso vehicular, asimismo se ha pedido que se restrinjan los viajes a Caylloma y se ha obstruido el acceso al Cañón del Colca.
Aunque las cifras proporcionadas por el gobierno regional indican que alrededor de 80 viviendas quedaron inhabitables, el subprefecto del distrito de Achoma, Fabio Mamani, informó a diario Correo que, solo en su localidad, de las 300 viviendas existentes, todas se encuentran en dichas condiciones.
Reports that British Ambassador Kim Darroch privately dissed the president’s team as “dysfunctional” and “inept” in leaked cables back to the British foreign ministry have set off a diplomatic spat. | Alex Wong/Getty Images
Kim Darroch is known as a garrulous and popular figure who rarely lets his diplomatic mask slip in public at his famously lavish parties.
When British Ambassador Kim Darroch went to the White House days after Donald Trump was inaugurated, the new U.S. president greeted him warmly, noting that he’d watched Darroch being interviewed on Fox News.
“You’re going to be a TV star!” Trump told Darroch.
Story Continued Below
It was a jovial moment, according to two people Darroch told about the encounter, and it was one reason that the British envoy — in public and private — has described Trump as “charming.”
But new reports that Darroch privately dissed Trump’s team as “dysfunctional” and “inept” in leaked cables back to the British foreign ministry have set off a diplomatic spat and soured Trump on the diplomat. The president has spent two days obsessively tweeting about Darroch, claiming he doesn’t even know him, that the Brit is a “very stupid guy” and a “pompous fool” and — most astoundingly — insisting the U.S. will no longer deal with Darroch.
Yet in Washington, Darroch is widely liked and well-connected in U.S. government circles, having cultivated close ties to some of the president’s top aides, whom he regularly has seen in business and social settings. The ambassador to the U.S. since early 2016, he is a garrulous figure who rarely lets his diplomatic mask slip in public. He also throws famously lavish parties in his stately residence next to the massive British Embassy and always has a fun toast to make.
Trump aides and confidants who have attended his soirees include White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Darroch and his embassy even hosted a September 2017 engagement party for Katie Walsh, Trump’s former deputy chief of staff, and her beau Mike Shields, which several Trump aides, including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, attended. Matthew Whitaker celebrated the new year during his brief stint as acting attorney general at the British Embassy, where Darroch oversaw the festivities.
Now, almost overnight, the ambassador risks going from bipartisan Washington convener to ostracized foreigner at Trump’s direction. The fallout reflects how quickly Trump can turn on a top ally’s envoy — and insist that Washington turn with him. It’s also another example of Trump’s willingness to shatter diplomatic norms with the United Kingdom, which claims a “special relationship” with the United States.
“It drags one of the most important U.S. relationships internationally through the mud at the very highest levels,” said Jeff Rathke, a former Foreign Service officer and Europe analyst who has served in multiple administrations. “Even if it is temporarily satisfying for President Trump in some way, it is bad for the relationship because it undermines confidence and trust.”
The irony, said one person close to the Trump administration who’s been to Darroch’s parties, is that “a lot of folks from the White House actually say the exact same things” about the internal dynamics there. “They were probably saying those things to him.”
The fracas started Sunday, when the Daily Mail published a story detailing the contents of secret cables that Darroch had sent to London offering his analysis and views on the Trump administration starting in 2017. According to the British news outlet, Darroch described internal divisions in the White House as “knife fights,” warned Trump could lead the U.S. to war with Iran and described the administration overall as “chaotic,” predicting it would not become “less dysfunctional; less unpredictable; less faction riven; less diplomatically clumsy and inept.”
Darroch wrote that Trump “radiates insecurity” and has “no filter.” But he also warned officials in London: “Do not write him off.”
On Monday, Trump lashed out: “I do not know the Ambassador, but he is not liked or well thought of within the U.S. We will no longer deal with him.” By Tuesday, Trump seemed even more angry, tweeting: “The wacky Ambassador that the U.K. foisted upon the United States is not someone we are thrilled with, a very stupid guy…. I don’t know the Ambassador but have been told he is a pompous fool.”
On both occasions, Trump also used his tweets to attack outgoing British Prime Minister Theresa May, who he said had failed to take his advice on how to negotiate Brexit with the EU. “She went her own foolish way-was unable to get it done,” Trump wrote.
So far, the British government has stood up for Darroch, noting that it’s his duty as a diplomat to offer “honest, unvarnished” analysis to his superiors back home. “Sir Kim Darroch continues to have the Prime Minister’s full support,” a U.K. spokesman said.
And the State Department has said it will still work with Darroch — for now.
“We will continue to deal with all accredited individuals until we get any further guidance from the White House or the president, which we will, of course, abide by the president’s direction,” spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said during a news conference, describing the U.S.-U.K. relationship as “bigger than any individual” and “bigger than any government.”
For his part, Darroch worked as usual on Tuesday from his embassy office on Massachusetts Avenue,. He also went to Capitol Hill to meet with Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Rep. George Holding (R-N.C.). However, he did not join a meeting between Liam Fox, a top British trade official, and Ivanka Trump, the president’s adviser and daughter. Fox had said he would apologize for the leak during the meeting.
Darroch, who did not respond to a request for comment, has spent decades as a diplomat, holding top positions such as national security adviser to former British Prime Minister David Cameron before coming to Washington. He’s done tours in Tokyo and Rome, and dealt with Middle Eastern and Adriatic issues, according to his embassy biography.
His appointment to the ambassador post in Washington is something of a career capstone — the position is considered the most prestigious ambassadorship in the U.K. foreign service and often goes to senior diplomats in the final years of their career.
The 65-year-old was born in Northern England and attended Durham University. He studied zoology but joined the U.K.’s diplomatic ranks in 1977. He is referred to as “Sir Kim” because of his appointment as a “Knight Commander” in 2008.
Some former officials and analysts believe what made Darroch a target for whoever leaked his critical memos is the ambassador’s extensive experience with European Union issues. He spent many years dealing with U.K.-EU relations, including having served as Britain’s representative to the regional bloc in Brussels. During a party in Washington months after the British voted to leave the EU, Darroch remarked wryly that his EU experience was “obviously time well spent.”
The belief in some corners is that the leaks of the cables were orchestrated by supporters of Brexit who want to make sure that the next British ambassador in the United States is on their side. Others suspect Russia may be behind the leaks similar to the way Moscow is accused of hacking the Democratic National Committee’s emails.
Sally Quinn, a journalist who’s attended parties at the British Embassy, said what Darroch wrote in the cables reflects what most foreign ambassadors in Washington also privately think.
“What Kim Darroch said is what all the ambassadors or most of them think, even the ones who particularly cozy up to the Trump people” like ambassadors from Middle Eastern countries, Quinn said. “They’re just lucky that their reports have not been hacked.”
Darroch has always been respectful to Trump administration officials in private, according to people who know him. At parties he has hosted, he would note how honored he was to have senior officials from the Trump administration attending, and they would return the bonhomie.
“Oh, we love the British — go Brexit!” one senior Trump administration official told Darroch at a small private dinner last year, prompting the British ambassador to laugh.
Darroch’s dilemma has now become an issue in the British Conservative Party’s internal race to replace May as prime minister. That contest is down to front-runner Boris Johnson, the former foreign secretary and a Brexit advocate, and Jeremy Hunt, the current foreign secretary who supported remaining in the EU during the 2016 referendum.
Hunt on Tuesday tweeted support for Darroch, whom he said was simply doing his job by sending honest analysis to London.
“Allies need to treat each other with respect as @theresa_may has always done with you,” he wrote, addressing Trump. “Ambassadors are appointed by the UK government and if I become PM our Ambassador stays.”
Johnson has stressed that he has a “good relationship” with the White House, avoiding addressing Trump’s comments directly. But Nigel Farage, a fellow Brexiteer whom Trump has suggested should be the British ambassador in Washington, bulldozed into the controversy. “Kim Darroch is totally unsuitable for the job and the sooner he is gone the better,” Farage tweeted.
Despite Darroch’s positive reputation in the foreign policy establishment, some observers pointed out that the insights he offered in his memos weren’t all that original.
“You could have pulled it from pages of The New York Times,” said a senior Conservative British lawmaker, who asked not to be named. In fact, Trump’s “overreaction” arguably proved correct Darroch’s assessment about the volatility of his administration, the lawmaker added.
Robin Niblett, director of the London-based Chatham House think tank, said Trump’s assault may be an opportunistic attempt to gain “leverage” over the next British prime minister.
“In essence, it’s, ‘You will need to buy back my love,’” Niblett said. “There’s plenty of issues on which the U.S. wants to influence U.K. foreign policy going forward: Iran sanctions, [the Chinese tech firm] Huawei and a U.S.-U.K. trade deal.”
Darroch was expected to leave his post, and possibly retire, in January 2020. The fortuitous timing could give the next prime minister a chance to possibly sit tight and quietly move him on without appearing to have caved to Trump.
If Johnson wins the prime minister’s slot, he might recall the envoy. But if for whatever reason Darroch is allowed to stay and Trump follows through on his threat to bar U.S. officials from dealing with him, Darroch could find his final days as a diplomat rather lonely.
The dust up is already affecting his ability to socialize. On Tuesday, a person familiar with the matter confirmed the White House had disinvited Darroch from a dinner on Monday night in honor of the visiting emir of Qatar.
Charlie Cooper contributed to this report from London.
Meruelo Media (MM) is the media division of The Meruelo Group. MM currently operates two Southern California Legendary media platforms; the classic hip-hop and R&B radio station, 93.5 KDAY and one of Los Angeles’ oldest Hispanic TV stations, KWHY-TV Canal 22, which is currently the flagship of MundoFOX Television Network. MM also owns the first and only US Hispanic Super Station, Super 22, airing on its KWHY-TV second digital stream and reaching over 6 Million Homes over various multiple video delivery providers. MM also broadcasts in Houston and Santa Barbara. The Meruelo Group is a minority owned, privately-held management company serving a diversified portfolio of affiliated entities with interests in banking and financial services; food services, manufacturing, distribution and restaurant operations; construction and engineering; hospitality and gaming; real estate management; media, public and private equity investing. For more information please visit www.meruelogroup.com.
“I thought her comments were disgraceful,” Trump said Friday.
Several Democrats have distanced themselves from Tlaib’s remark, including Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.), who earlier in the CNN program said his constituents would never speak that way about the president.
“Even the most progressive of the constituents I have,” he said. “They know better than to use that kind of language about the president of the United States, regardless of the coarse language that the president uses in public.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sits for a portrait in the Lawyer’s Lounge at the Supreme Court of the United States.
Shuran Huang/NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
Shuran Huang/NPR
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sits for a portrait in the Lawyer’s Lounge at the Supreme Court of the United States.
Shuran Huang/NPR
Does Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the 86-year-old feminist icon, have any regrets about her professional life?
Hardly.
“I do think that I was born under a very bright star,” Ginsburg said, recounting her life and the obstacles that faced her.
Ginsburg added: “I’ll tell you what Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor once said to me. She said, ‘Suppose we had come of age at a time when women lawyers were welcome at the bar. You know what? Today, we would be retired partners from some large law firm, but because that route was not open to us, we had to find another way, and we both end up in the United States Supreme Court.’ “
Ginsburg graduated from Columbia Law School at the top of her class in 1959, but she was well aware of the barriers to women. She “didn’t think there was much to be done about it.” She clerked for a U.S. District Court judge, but “no law firm in the city of New York” would “hire me,” she said.
She worked on a project on civil procedure that took her to Sweden before she eventually took a job at Rutgers Law School in New Jersey in 1963.
“Then the women’s movement came alive at the end of the ’60s,” and “there I was, a law school professor with time that I could devote to moving along this change.”
That is an understatement.
For more than a decade prior to her first judicial appointment in 1980, Ginsburg led the legal fight for gender equality. And, in our interview last week, she singled out that work, not any of her Supreme Court opinions, as perhaps her greatest accomplishment.
“In the ’70s, there were many things that came together that led the court for the first time” in its history “to strike down gender classifications as unconstitutional, as a denial of equal protection of the laws,” Ginsburg said. “That was an exhilarating 10 years in my life. In doing that, and then this job, well, it really is the best job in the world for a judge.”
The NPR Politics Podcast
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg To NPR: “I Am Very Much Alive”
The highlights of her crusade in the 1960s and ’70s are recounted in two recent movies — RBG, a documentary, and On The Basis Of Sex, a biopic.
Ginsburg’s first Supreme Court victory came in 1971 when she filed the lead brief in Reed v. Reed, a case testing whether a state could automatically prefer men over women as executors of estates. The answer was, “No.”
It was the first time the Supreme Court had ever struck down a state law because it discriminated based on gender. And that was just the beginning.
Ginsburg founded the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union and would go on to become the first tenured female professor at Columbia Law School.
As the chief architect of the battle for women’s legal rights, she devised a strategy that was characteristically cautious, precise and single-mindedly aimed at one goal: winning.
Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court William Rehnquist administers the oath of office to newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with President Bill Clinton on Aug. 10, 1993.
Kort Duce/AFP/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Kort Duce/AFP/Getty Images
Because she often had to persuade establishment-oriented male judges, she frequently picked male plaintiffs. In Weinberger v. Weisenfeld, for instance, she represented Stephen Weisenfeld, whose schoolteacher wife, the family’s principal breadwinner, died in childbirth.
Ginsburg convinced the Supreme Court that it was unconstitutional gender discrimination for the Social Security Administration to deny widower Weisenfeld the same benefits that would have been given to a widow for child care.
In another case, she took on the U.S. military, representing Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the Air Force who was denied a dependent’s allowance for her husband that would have been automatically granted for the wife of any military member. The Supreme Court agreed with Ginsburg that the law unconstitutionally discriminated based on gender.
Over the course of a decade, Ginsburg would win landmark victories in five of the cases she argued before the high court.
In a prior NPR interview, she explained the legal theory she sold to the Supreme Court this way:
“The words of the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause — ‘Nor shall any state deny to any person the equal protection of the laws’ — well, that word, ‘any person,’ covers women as well as men. And the Supreme Court woke up to that reality really in 1971.”
Going forward, even with a majority-conservative court, Ginsburg said she believes the country has come too far to go back.
“I don’t think there’s going to be any turning back to old ways,” she said, adding, “When you think about — the world has changed really in what women are doing. I went to law school when women were less than 3% of lawyers in the country; today, they are 50%. I never had a woman teacher in college or in law school. The changes have been enormous. And they’ve just — they’ve gone much too far [to be] going back.”
Leonardo Fariña no para de escribir. Tuvo dos años de encierro carcelario para mirar su causa de punta a punta. Anotó todo aquello que recordaba y cada vez que tenía una duda llamaba a su abogada, Giselle Robles. Cuando declaró por primera vez el 8 de abril ante el juez Sebastián Casanello, Fariña llevó esos papeles, que le sirvieron como ayuda memoria, y luego los dejó en el juzgado. Esa fue la declaración que se filtró el pasado miércoles. Pero siguió escribiendo. El 12 de abril envió al juzgado una ampliación de su indagatoria hasta ahora desconocida y a la que tuvo acceso NOTICIAS. En ese manuscrito, el arrepentido de la “Ruta del dinero K” da más detalles sobre el universo de Lázaro Báez. “Durante mi estadía en Río Gallegos, el señor Báez y demás integrantes del grupo mostraban como el encargado de las cuestiones personales legales de Báez al Dr. Saldivia. No recuerdo si se llama Roberto o Ricardo”, describió Fariña.
Roberto Saldivia es un abogado patagónico muy conocido en el universo K. No sólo porque es uno de los apoderados legales de Báez sino también porque integró el primer directorio de Hotesur, la empresa controlante de Alto Calafate, el hotel de la familia Kirchner. “Hice referencia al Dr. Saldivia ya que puede tener documentación que sirva para el proceso y porque me consta la estrecha confianza con el señor Báez”, agregó el arrepentido.
Roberto Saldivia, el abogado de Báez mencionado por Fariña.
Inmuebles. Otro personaje que mencionó Fariña y que hasta ahora no había sido incluido en la causa que investiga el juez Casanello es Osvaldo “Bochi” Sanfelice. En su manuscrito Fariña recordó un encuentro que tuvo con él. “Cuando llegamos a la empresa la reunión inicial la tuve con Martín Báez, Claudio Bustos, el “Bochi” Sanfelice y Carlos Minozzi (dueño de Plus Carga). Con el paso del tiempo, Martín Báez me dijo que el “Bochi” era el encargado de la inteligencia de ellos (sic). No me consta que haya trabajado para los servicios pero sí que él era el encargado de la inteligencia para el grupo”, contó Fariña. Reveladoras aptitudes del socio de Máximo Kirchner.
Más adelante, el ex marido de Karina Jelinek agregó otras funciones del “Bochi”: “Era el administrador de los bienes inmuebles y de los campos de Báez y de Austral Agro. Esta persona tiene la documentación de las propiedades de Báez y de los campos de Austral Agro”, contó. Sobre los campos de Báez, dijo que sólo vio “algunos boletos de compraventa que se pagaron en dólares cash”. Y su relato sigue con detalles exquisitos. Fariña sabe que si da información buena y corroborable, tendrá un mejor trato en su pena. “Hay que pegarle para que deje de hablar”, deslizan los empleados más jocosos del juzgado Nº 7 de Comodoro Py.
“Austral Agro era una empresa que no tenía propiedades, no generaba ganancias (hasta que yo estuve) y estaban haciendo un proyecto experimental de plantaciones con semillas traídas de Canadá y USA. Esa empresa estaba a cargo de Leandro Báez. Lo que sí puedo asegurar es que el valor de patrimonio de la empresa no era coincidente con los valores de los boletos de compraventa. Y además había campos que no estaban incorporados al patrimonio, pero sí comprados por boleto”, detalló Fariña.
La carretera que conduce a Papallacta permanece cerrada luego de que amaneció con una capa de hielo provocada por una nevada. Así lo reportó esta mañana el ECU911 de Quito.
La Policía Nacional informó que la vía Pifo – Papallacta, al nororiente de Quito, se encuentra cerrada.
Conductores fueron testigos de la condición climática que generó una capa de aproximadamente 6 centímetros. Las autoridades recomendaron conducir con precaución, utilizar luces y reducir la velocidad hasta que la carretera sea despejada.
Según Mónica Valdiviezo, analista del Instituto Nacional de Meteorología e Hidrología (Inamhi), este acontecimiento se debe al ingreso de masas de aire frío desde el continente con niveles medios de la atmósfera, que al ponerse en contacto con la parte alta de la cordillera de los Andes, estas condiciones cambian.
“En la zona la temperatura es fría y al ingresar una masa de aire más fría, esta se pasó del estado gaseoso al sólido a lo que se le llama sublimación inversa”, indicó.
De acuerdo a las estadísticas del Inamhi, en septiembre de 2016 también se dio este acontecimiento.
Valdiviezo señaló que Ecuador es un país tropical cuyas condiciones cambian bruscamente. A la vez, descartó que estas alteraciones en el clima se den con frecuencia. “Por el momento no se va a repetir, todo depende de las condiciones, la atmósfera es dinámica”, sostuvo.
La Policía Nacional y Ministerio de Transporte y Obras Públicas (MTOP) realizan la limpieza de la nieve a la subida a Papallacta, a la altura del km 20.
La analista informó a este medio que el Inamhi para estos acontecimientos hacen un análisis con imágenes satelitales para luego emitirlo a la Secretaría Nacional de Gestión de Riesgos (SNGR) y así proceder con las medidas de prevención. (I)
This is a widget area - If you go to "Appearance" in your WP-Admin you can change the content of this box in "Widgets", or you can remove this box completely under "Theme Options"
