Sunday, May 31, 2020

thanks governor, you can talk unlike those in ny

who talk trash, talk not at all, or have told nassau otb employees thst horse raving is dead firing and sports betting is the snswe while he plays with the nassau county committee leader

you sound sort of normal for a politician

Atlantic City casinos may reopen around July 4 from COVID-19 shutdown, Murphy says

Scott Fallon, NorthJersey.comPublished 2:11 p.m. ET May 31, 2020 | Updated 2:28 p.m. ET May 31, 2020

Seaside Heights before and after the opening of the beaches on the Jersey Shore during the Coronavirus pandemic. NorthJersey.com

Gov. Phil Murphy said Sunday he hopes Atlantic City casinos can be reopened around July 4, but stressed that strict social distancing and occupancy limits will have to be enforced to make sure COVID-19 is not easily spread.

Murphy told WOND radio in South Jersey that his administration is "trying like heck" to get the casinos opened earlier but said the task is enormously complicated to ensure the safety of gamblers and workers.

"It's probably still too early to give you a specific answer," Murphy said of an exact date but stressed it would likely be around Independence Day.

Since closing on March 16 per Murphy's order, casinos have lost hundreds of millions in revenues and laid off thousands of workers.

The state has lost $18 million in direct taxes on gambling in March and April alone, according to state gambling data. Revenue numbers for May are not yet available.

And while internet gaming and online sports wagering have continued, most sporting events have been canceled.

Gaming revenue for April was $82.6 million, a decrease of almost 69% from $265 million in April 2019, according to state data.

letitia james might ponder the use of

uspto.gov inventor searchmfaustman
pubmed.org faustman dl
pubmed.org ristori + bcg
faustmanlab.org

sick people are simply road kill for lawyers who have swell heads and atrophied minds

Attorney General James Fights to Defend ACA in Supreme Court

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James and a coalition of states today fought to defend the Affordable Care Act (ACA) against efforts by the Trump Administration and the State of Texas to repeal the law, putting the health care of tens of millions of Americans at risk. If the ACA is repealed, 133 million Americans with pre-existing conditions could be denied coverage or charged more based on their health status. The ACA is also providing critical public health programs that are helping to fight the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), states’ decisions to expand Medicaid, and subsidies that are helping working families access the health coverage they need, among countless other benefits. Attorney General James and the coalition of 19 additional attorneys general and the governor of Kentucky, have now taken their fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, after the court agreed to review a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that held that the ACA’s individual mandate was unconstitutional and simultaneously called into question whether the remaining provisions of the law could still stand.

“In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has never been more clear how important it is for Americans to have access to quality, affordable health coverage,” said Attorney General James. “Yet, President Trump continues to actively work to strip health coverage away from millions of individuals and families, including more than a million who have the coronavirus. We are asking the Supreme Court to stop the president from kicking Americans off their health plans and finally end his efforts to undo all the progress made over the last ten years.”

The lawsuit — originally filed by a Texas-led coalition and later supported by the Trump Administration — argued that a Republican-led Congress rendered the ACA’s individual mandate unconstitutional when it reduced the penalty for forgoing coverage to $0. They further argued that the rest of the ACA should be held invalid as a result of that change. Attorney General James and a coalition of attorneys general defended the ACA in its entirety, supported by a bipartisan group of amici, including scholars, economists, public health experts, hospital and provider associations, patient groups, counties, cities, and more. While the Fifth Circuit held the individual mandate to be unconstitutional, it declined to further rule on the validity of the ACA’s remaining provisions. The court instead sent the case back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to determine whether the problem with the mandate requires striking down the whole law. In January, however, Attorney General James and the coalition petitioned the Supreme Court for expedited review to protect Americans’ health care and resolve the uncertainty created by the Fifth Circuit decision. The Supreme Court granted review of the case in March for the upcoming term.

In today’s filing, Attorney General James and the coalition make clear that patients, doctors, hospitals, employers, workers, states, and more will be negatively impacted if the ACA is repealed. The brief also highlights important advancements in health care access made under the ACA, including:

More than 12 million Americans now receive coverage through the ACA’s Medicaid expansion;
Nearly nine million individuals nationwide receive tax credits to help subsidize their health insurance coverage through individual marketplaces;
Millions of working families rely on high-quality, employer-sponsored insurance plans;
Important protections prohibit insurers from denying health insurance to the 133 million Americans with pre-existing conditions, like COVID-19, diabetes, cancer, or pregnancy, or from charging individuals higher premiums because of their health status; and
Nearly $1.3 trillion in federal funding has been dedicated to keeping Americans healthy and covered, which includes spending through Medicaid expansion and public health dollars.

And in New York:

The state uninsured rate reached its lowest point ever recorded in 2018 — 4.7-percent;
More than 4.7 million New Yorkers now receive health coverage through the ACA, including nearly 3.3 million on Medicaid;
58 percent of enrollees were expected to receive $636 million in tax credits to help subsidize the cost of health care in 2019 alone; and
The average monthly premium tax credit available to eligible Qualified Health Plan enrollees in 2019 was $335.

Joining Attorney General James in filing today’s brief are the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota (by and through its Department of Commerce), Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia, as well as the governor of Kentucky.

letitia james strikes out

one may assime or not that a lawyer is nothing but a high priced f...ng errand boy

strike one

Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, No. 16-622 (2d Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Justia Opinion Summary

WD filed suit against OGS, alleging that defendants violated its rights under the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and the New York State Constitution by denying WD's applications to participate as a food truck vendor in the Lunch Program based on its ethnic-slur branding. The Second Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant, holding that defendants' action violated WD's equal protection rights and its rights under the New York State Constitution. In this case, it was undisputed that defendants denied WD's applications solely because of its ethnic-slur branding. In Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017), the Supreme Court clarified that this action amounted to viewpoint discrimination and, if not government speech or otherwise protected, was prohibited by the First Amendment. The court rejected defendants' argument that their actions were unobjectionable because they were either part of OGS's government speech or permissible regulation of a government contractor's speech.

strike 2

people of all sorts bet at nyc otb. ny pml sec 109 and its predecessors did not apply to any OTB; ny pml sec 109 is unconstitutional, ny const art 1 sec 3; ny pml sec 109 is vague, indefinite and or overly broad.

note the counsel for nyc otb was also nothing but a high priced f....ng errand boy

https://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/open-1st-palm-sunday-otb-rakes-2m-article-1.659016

strike 3. she has her statutory authority duties and right of free speech. let letitia james show us that she recognize that the term "Easter Sunday" encompasses the Easter Sunday of his holiness Andrew Cuomo and Cardinal Dolan as well as that of the cashiers at Nassau OTB who are members of the Orthodox Church headed by his Holiness Bartholomew. See NY Const Art 1 Sec 3. Let the infidels of New York pray at the Holy Church of Nassau OTB and honor the memory of the dearly departed and deceased NYC OTB.

Sunday, April 12, 2020

Track Code	Track Name	Entry	Scratch	1st Post ET	1st Post Local	Time Zone	Stakes Race(s)
SA	SANTA ANITA PARK	72	48	3:00 PM	12:00 PM	PDT
SUN	SUNLAND PARK	168	24	2:30 PM	12:30 PM	MDT	Mt. Cristo Rey H.
TAM	TAMPA BAY DOWNS	72	0	12:35 PM

n+ 1 guy might learn from......

faustmanlab.org pubmed.org uspto.gov inventor search faustman pubmed.org ristori + bcg

The N+1 Candidate

https://nikilsaval.com/contact/

Nikil Saval wants to bring more democratic socialism to Philadelphia, as part of a leftist wave in American electoral politics.

Credit...Michelle Gustafson for The New York Times

By Jonah Engel Bromwich

May 28, 2020

Nikil Saval is a socialist candidate running for State Senate in Pennsylvania’s 1st district, which encompasses a huge swath of Philadelphia. He used to edit the literary and political magazine N+1, which is to say that he is more bookish than your standard elected-office-seeker. This occasionally gets in his way.

During a recent forum about education, Mr. Saval, 37, was asked what word he would choose as a title for a memoir about his run. He covered his face with his sweater.

“Tired,” he said, upon reappearing. “Exhausted.” The event’s moderator laughed, and her Zoom square turned momentarily yellow.

andrew cuomo mocks studio 5-4 & 3x 10 ^8

The Fisrt Smenment s duspended in ny along with ny const art 1 sec 3

the pope cuomo andrew does not care about those that pray or easter sundays let alone that ny pml sec 109 is uncondtitutional. lucky for some that the supreme court decision him pay the wandering dago food truck.

Sunday, April 12, 2020

Track Code	Track Name	Entry	Scratch	1st Post ET	1st Post Local	Time Zone	Stakes Race(s)
SA	SANTA ANITA PARK	72	48	3:00 PM	12:00 PM	PDT
SUN	SUNLAND PARK	168	24	2:30 PM	12:30 PM	MDT	Mt. Cristo Rey H.
TAM	TAMPA BAY DOWNS	72	0	12:35 PM

Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, No. 16-622 (2d Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Justia Opinion Summary

Continue reading the main story

Supreme Court, in 5-4 Decision, Rejects Church’s Challenge to Shutdown Order

A California church argued that restrictions on public gatherings treated houses of worship worse than many businesses.

Credit...Max Whittaker for The New York Times

By Adam Liptak

May 30, 2020

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday turned away a request from a church in California to block enforcement of state restrictions on attendance at religious services.

The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four-member liberal wing to form a majority.

“Although California’s guidelines place restrictions on places of worship, those restrictions appear consistent with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in an opinion concurring in the unsigned ruling.

“Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time,” the chief justice wrote. “And the order exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.”

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh noted dissents.

“The church and its congregants simply want to be treated equally to comparable secular businesses,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote in a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. “California already trusts its residents and any number of businesses to adhere to proper social distancing and hygiene practices.”

“The state cannot,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote, quoting from an appeals court decision in a different case, “‘assume the worst when people go to worship but assume the best when people go to work or go about the rest of their daily lives in permitted social settings.’”

The court’s ruling was its first attempt to balance the public health crisis against the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom. And it expanded the Supreme Court’s engagement with the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, after rulings on voting in Wisconsin and prisons in Texas and Ohio.

The case was brought by the South Bay United Pentecostal Church in Chula Vista, Calif., which said Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, had lost sight of the special status of religion in the constitutional structure.

“The Covid-19 pandemic is a national tragedy,” lawyers for the church wrote in their Supreme Court brief, “but it would be equally tragic if the federal judiciary allowed the ‘fog of war’ to act as an excuse for violating fundamental constitutional rights.”

The brief, filed May 23, asked the justices to block a ruling the day before from a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, saying that the shutdown orders did not single out houses of worship for unfavorable treatment. The majority said state officials had struck an appropriate balance.

“We’re dealing here with a highly contagious and often fatal disease for which there presently is no known cure,” the majority wrote in an unsigned opinion that went on to quote a famous dissent from a 1947 Supreme Court decision. “In the words of Justice Robert Jackson, if a ‘court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.’”

In dissent, Judge Daniel P. Collins wrote that California had failed “to honor its constitutional duty to accommodate a critical element of the free exercise of religion — public worship.”

“I do not doubt the importance of the public health objectives that the state puts forth,” Judge Collins wrote, “but the state can accomplish those objectives without resorting to its current inflexible and overbroad ban on religious services.”

The appeals court ruled on May 22. That same day, President Trump made remarks on the subject at a news briefing.

“Today, I’m identifying houses of worship — churches, synagogues and mosques — as essential places that provide essential services,” he said, adding: “The governors need to do the right thing and allow these very important, essential places of faith to open right now, for this weekend. If they don’t do it, I will override the governors.”

Three days later, Mr. Newsom issued additional guidance for houses of worship, requiring them to “limit attendance to 25 percent of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower.”

In a second Supreme Court brief, the church said the guidance again discriminated against religious groups.

“Plaintiffs’ sanctuary seats 600 persons, and each service normally brings in between 200 and 300 congregants,” the brief said. “Some of the larger houses of worship in California can seat 1,000 congregants or more. But under California’s guidelines, plaintiffs will only be permitted to welcome 100 congregants, with no explanation as to the justification for this arbitrary cap. In contrast, there is no percentage limitation for manufacturing and warehousing facilities — simply a social distancing requirement.”

“A review of California’s sector-specific guidelines shows that the only two industries with percentage caps are retail and houses of worship,” the brief said, “and retail is set at a 50 percent cap. Offices, manufacturing, food packaging, museums, and every other sector has no percentage cap.”

The court also acted on a second case on Friday, that one brought by two Chicago-area churches, Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church and Logos Baptist Ministries. They said an order from Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat, discriminated against houses of worship.