Activists to rally against body odor law

Published: Monday, February 23, 2015 @ 8:41 AM
Updated: Monday, February 23, 2015 @ 10:19 AM

Trending on Facebook

More popular and trending stories

Activists in Burien, Washington, will protest a new law that bans people from having bad body odor in public.

 The ordinance bans people from public places for "social offenses," such as excessive body odor, boisterous behavior and brushing their teeth in public places such as city parks, libraries and City Hall. 

>> Read more trending stories  
 
Those who are caught smelling bad in public could be barred from being in that public place for as long as a year. 

The city says the idea is to protect people from offensive odors and behavior. But civil rights groups say the law is unconstitutional because it seems to single out a particular group of people, the homeless

Several civil rights groups are planning to march and rally at Burien City Hall Monday night.

"It's hard to believe that a well-dressed middle class woman is going to be booted out of the library for her perfume, whereas a homeless person is much more likely to be targeted," said Doug Honig with the American Civil Liberties Union.
 
According to a news release, the rally at 6:45 p.m. is meant to "expose the Burien City Council" for passing a law that "criminalizes and profiles homeless people.”

Trump’s travel ban: What they are saying about the Supreme Court decision

Published: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 @ 10:18 AM

A woman pushes a stroller near a sign for international arrivals at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Monday, June 26, 2017, in Seattle. The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that President Donald Trump's travel ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen can be enforced if those visitors lack a

The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to allow portions of President Donald Trump’s executive order banning travel to the Unites States from certain countries to be reinstated has left many unanswered questions. 

And while the administration can restrict certain groups of people from entering the country beginning as early as Thursday, the answer to what else Trump is legally allowed to do when it comes to immigration may not come until the fall when the justices will hear arguments about the case.

Here’s what other media outlets are saying about the ruling.

What the Supreme Court’s travel ban ruling means

The Washington Post

“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow portions of President Trump’s travel ban to take effect is a win for the administration, but the impact will be far less severe than President Trump’s initial version of the measure.

That is because the high court effectively allowed Trump to ban from coming to the United States only citizens of six majority-Muslim countries “who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” It also nudged the president to complete his promised review of vetting procedures, which might mean the issue is resolved by the time the court is set to fully consider the ban in its October term.

For now, if you are not a U.S. citizen and have a relative here, have been hired by a U.S. employer or admitted to an American university, you can still probably get a visa. But if you’re applying cold as a visitor or through the diversity visa program, you probably can’t.”

>> Read more trending news

Court's travel ban ruling gives Trump a boost, changes media narrative

Fox News

“Nine justices delivered a reminder yesterday of why the Supreme Court was such an important campaign issue.

In allowing key parts of President Trump’s travel ban to take effect, the high court—with help from Trump’s man Neil Gorsuch—upended the conventional wisdom on the case. After all, in agreeing to hear the case in October, the justices could have left the temporary stay in place pending a final ruling.

Instead, they sent a strong signal to the appellate courts that they had gone too far in blocking the executive order—and enabled the president to claim “a clear victory for our national security.”

But the court also obliterated the existing media narrative, which is that the travel ban was a badly botched, unconstitutional overreach by Trump.”

Supreme Court's compromise on travel ban raises big questions for US tourism industry

Forbes

“After battling through lower courts, a watered down version of the travel ban was re-instated Monday, following the Supreme Court’s decision to hear appeals on the ban this October. In the meantime, a limited version will be in effect in as little as 72 hours.

Although President Trump is claiming it as a victory, this iteration is far more limited than the two previous versions. Restricting travel from six majority Muslim countries for 90 days and suspending the country’s refugee program for 120 days, the latest version only effects people without any connections to the US.”

Trump applauds Supreme Court, feels ‘gratified’ by ruling to revive travel ban

The Washington Times

“The Supreme Court revived President Trump’s extreme vetting travel ban Monday, ruling that much of it can go into effect — and along the way delivering an implicit rebuke to the army of lower-court judges who blasted the president as anti-Muslim.

In a unanimous unsigned ruling, the justices said the president has important national security powers that the courts must respect and ruled that he likely has the power to deny entry to broad categories of would-be visitors and immigrants.

But the justices said those who already have a connection to the U.S. — either a job offer, an admission to an educational program or a close family connection — will be exempted from the 90-day ban on travel from six countries as well as the 120-day pause on refugees.

Minutes after the ruling, both sides were fighting over what that meant.”

Supreme Court ruling on travel ban sparks fear, frustration — and joy — in Southern California

OC Register

“Muslim Americans in Southern California described the Supreme Court’s decision Monday to allow a temporary, partial version of the Trump administration’s travel ban as disappointing and “irrational,” but noted that until the issue gets a full hearing later this year it’s unclear how it will play out.

The ruling was also met with a chorus of bravos from Trump supporters who say it will make America safer, with additional vetting of who gets in and who doesn’t.

Both sides are gearing up for what’s next.”

SCOTUS splits the travel ban baby

Slate

“The Supreme Court’s ruling on Donald Trump’s travel ban is like an optical illusion: Your perception of it changes depending on your vantage point. To Trump and his allies, the decision looks like total vindication for the administration, a move that allows its long-delayed executive order to take effect. To left-leaning analysts, it’s a clever political compromise that still protects many of the refugees and foreign nationals who would’ve been excluded by the ban.

There’s a reason for these wildly differing takes: The decision itself is confusing and ambiguous. That’s because the court ruled only on the injunction and thus dodged the central issue: the legality of the order and the president’s authority to pass it. The court’s baby-splitting shields the president and his opponents from an outright loss or a clear-cut victory. But it doesn’t make much sense as a matter of law. It preserves the authority of the Supreme Court to say what the law is—even though, by its own terms, it fails to say what the law is.”

What is next for the Senate health care bill?

Published: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 @ 12:48 PM

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky walks onto the U.S. Senate floor Thursday following a meeting with Senate Republicans on their long-awaited health care plan. The Congressional Budget Office has now said that plan could lead to 22 million fewer insured Americans, which could include 680,000 Georgians. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Updated at 1:52 p.m. ET: From The Associated Press: “Lacking votes, Senate GOP leaders abruptly delay vote on health care bill until after July 4th recess.”

Original story: Early Tuesday, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said he will oppose beginning debate on the Senate health care bill, voting no on a procedural vote that would put into motion the final vote for an overhaul of the country's health care system.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), and Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nevada) have said they, too, will likely oppose the procedural motion that allows debate on the bill to start. All four senators have said they would need to see alterations to the GOP version of the bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare before they would vote to move forward.

>> Read more trending news

On Monday, the Congressional Budget Office “scored” -- or estimated the cost -- of the bill. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said he hoped to have a vote on the bill by Thursday before senators leave Washington D.C. for the Fourth of July holiday recess.

So what will happen next with the bill? Will we see a vote? Here’s a look at how the bill would become a law.

Since the CBO score is in, the Senate parliamentarian will meet with McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) to make sure that the bill as written is in line with the rules of reconciliation. Reconciliation allows legislation to pass the Senate with a simple majority vote of 51-49. Reconciliation does not allow for a filibuster, so a senator could not delay a vote on the bill indefinitely.

Once the bill is cleared for reconciliation, and if McConnell feels it can survive, he will take the bill to the Senate floor.

There, the bill faces a procedural step called a “Motion to Proceed” that allows the Senate to begin debate on the legislation. If the vote for that procedure – a simple majority vote – fails, then the bill does not go to the Senate floor for debate or for passage.

If it survives the Motion to Proceed, the bill heads to the floor.

Once the bill is introduced, a 20-hour window for debate begins. The debate time is divided between Democrats and Republicans. The debate process allows for speeches about the bill and amendments and motions to the legislation.

After the 20 hours of debate, there is a little more time for senators to offer amendments to the bill with no debate.

Eventually, someone will call for a “Motion to End Debate,” otherwise known as a “cloture” vote. The cloture vote ends all discussion on the bill and moves the legislation to one final vote on the Senate floor.

During that vote, McConnell can only afford to lose two GOP votes and still see the bill pass, since all of the Democratic senators have said they will vote no on the bill. He would do that with the help of Vice President Mike Pence, since the vice president has the power to break a tie vote in the Senate.

New island forms off North Carolina coast

Published: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 @ 2:20 PM

Dunes and ocean at Cape Hatteras National Seashore. (Photo by John Greim/LightRocket via Getty Images)
John Greim/LightRocket via Getty Images

An island that appeared to be little more than a “bump” in April has grown to span a mile across and three football fields wide off the coast of North Carolina, according to multiple reports.

>> Read more trending news

The island near the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse has been dubbed “Shelly Island,” so-named because it’s a prime location to find seashells, visitor Janice Regan told The Virginian-Pilot.

“Isn’t it crazy?” Regan asked the newspaper. “It was just a little bump in April.”

The island formed off Cape Point, “a constantly changing spit of land of about 100 acres,” according to The Virginian-Pilot.

Tourist Chad Koczera noticed the sandbar while searching for shells during a vacation with his fiancée, according to CNN. He realized that he couldn’t get to the island by foot, so he sent up his drone and photographed it.

Cape Hatteras point and the new sandbar island #capepoint

A post shared by (@chadonka) on

Officials warned that despite the island’s picturesque beauty, it can be incredibly dangerous to reach. The Hatteras Island Rescue Squad said last week that it had to rescue five people from the island after the tide rose, surrounding them with quickly moving waters and stranding them.

“It becomes (inaccessible) as the tide begins to come in and the current rips through the channel at a dangerous speed,” officials said. “We highly recommend that visitors and residents do not attempt to wade or swim to the island.”

As the newly formed island off Cape Point in Buxton grows in publicity it is important to remember that it becomes...

Posted by Hatteras Island Rescue Squad on Friday, June 23, 2017

Confessed attempted rapist reveals chilling details of plans to rape real estate agents

Published: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 @ 2:01 PM

Real estate agents in Bucks County, Pennsylvania were targeted  by a would-be rapist, who revealed chilling details of his attack plans.
David McNew/Getty Images

A Pennsylvania judge has upheld the sentence of a Bucks County man who pleaded guilty to an attempted rape charge in 2013.

>> Read more trending news

Frank Yeager, 33, was sentenced to prison for up to 20 years and later appealed, contending that his lawyer did not question whether his confession was legal.

Yeager revealed he regarded his search for potential rape victims as “full time work,” police said.

He wrote in a note, “I truly enjoy the hunt and cannot wait for my prize.” He compiled a list with more than 200 names, addresses and personal information about targets, according to Lehigh Valley Live, and was was fixated on raping real estate agents.

Judge H. Geoffrey Moulton Jr. upheld Yeager’s sentence and portrayed him as a full-blown psychopath who was obsessed with rape, Penn Live reported.

>> Related: Lawyer recorded telling rape victim Trump will deport her if she testified, indictment says

Yeager plotted for five months to rape a real estate agent by luring her to a property, and even waited in the home for her with the lights off.

Read more here.