The U.S. Supreme Court plunged into the politically messy issue of redrawing congressional and legislative districts Tuesday, in a case that could have profound implications for both major political parties for years to come. The high court heard oral arguments in a case brought by Democratic voters in Wisconsin. They argued that a Republican redistricting plan for the state assembly was so overtly partisan that it violated constitutional protections of freedom of speech and equal protection under the law for Wisconsin voters. A lower federal court sided with the challengers last year and against Republican state officials in Wisconsin. Officials argued Tuesday that they had not violated any constitutional rights when they drew up new boundaries for state assembly districts. "Our legislature followed traditional redistricting criteria, which is what they have been required to do and we think they followed that and that the justices will agree," Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel told reporters in front of the court following the oral arguments. The process of state legislatures redrawing congressional and legislative district boundaries has been enmeshed in politics for two centuries. Early on, the process was referred to as "gerrymandering," where one party or the other tries to gain an electoral advantage by redrawing district boundaries to maximize their voting clout. Republicans have had success in several states in redrawing congressional and legislative voting districts and that has helped them maintain their majority in the House of Representatives. Democrats have come under fire as well for partisan maps in states where they control the legislature, like Maryland and Massachusetts. During Tuesday's oral arguments, the more liberal high court justices seemed open to the case brought by Democratic voters. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said a ruling in favor of the Republican districting plan in Wisconsin would encourage others to stack the deck against their political opponents. "What becomes of the... Oral arguments for the case lasted Pick the correct answer from the following options: - 4 hours - 1 hour - 30 minutes - not enough information
1 hour

I've shared my feelings about Temple Spa before in my review of Repose Aromatherapy Resting Cream. Basically, my first experience was a very pushy salesperson at a wedding fair several years ago which really put me off the brand, and it took me a while to try their products again. But when I did I was really impressed, and I can honestly say that nothing I've reviewed since has disappointed me! Today I'm reviewing Temple Spa Trufflesque, an Ultra Hydration & Radiance Masque for the face. Trufflesque aims to give hydration and radiance to the skin, and plumps to help reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles. It's a luxury mask suitable for all skin types, particularly dry or dull skin, and it helps to rejuvenate tired skin too. The impressive list of ingredients includes black truffles, gold and silk peptides, but unfortunately these expensive additives contribute to Trufflesque's slightly expensive price tag. The first thing that strikes me about this product is the amazing packaging. All Temple Spa products have really amazing, premium packaging, and I feel that they add to the feeling that you are about to use something really special on your skin. The dark glass jar has a gold lid and it is nestled in a gold and chocolate brown box with the most amazingly cute mask brush slotted in too. The mask itself is gold and it shimmers so prettily, if you look closely it's almost as if you can see the particles of real gold! To apply you just paint the golden mask onto your face with the cute little brush (it makes applying the mask so easy) then leave for 15-20 minutes. The mask doesn't dry completely, it stays a little bit tacky to the touch, and I find that it makes my skin tingle quite a bit. For extra benefits you can also then massage the mask into your skin for around 2 minutes, before removing with a damp muslin cloth or flannel. What did the narrator review? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - wedding fair - face masque - resting cream - not enough information
face masque

WHITE HOUSE U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday met for 80 minutes in the Oval Office with a general he described as the second most powerful man in North Korea. Afterward, Trump told reporters on the White House South Lawn that the June 12 summit in Singapore between him and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Un, was back on. Trump, however, sought to quell some of the high expectations, saying the summit would "be a beginning" and subsequent discussions were likely to be needed to get Pyongyang to agree to denuclearization. "We're not going to go in and sign something on June 12th, and we never were," he said. "We're going to start a process." Trump declared he "never said it happens in one meeting," but that it "will ultimately be a successful process." Asked by VOA News whether the North Koreans had committed to complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization, Trump replied only that "we talked about a lot of things." 'Take your time' The president said he told Kim Yong Chol, the former head of North Korean military intelligence, "Take your time. We can go fast. We can go slowly." The president made clear that sanctions on North Korea would not be lifted, however, until the country agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal. As the negotiations over the Singapore summit play out in public, there is a sense among some observers that Trump and Kim Jong Un each have a clear sense of the deal they ultimately want to strike. Less clear is whether the U.S. and North Korean visions can match up in any meaningful way. "Singapore might be the first time people will have to put their cards on the table," a U.S. official said on the condition of anonymity. Upon his arrival Friday at the White House, Kim Yong Chol, who is under U.S. sanctions for links to cyberattacks against American companies, delivered a letter from Kim Jong Un. While Trump did not reveal the contents, he described the gesture as "very nice." When was Kim Yong Chol under US sanctions? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - not enough information - After making cyber threats on American companies. - Before coming to America . - Before putting "all nuclear cards" on the table
Before coming to America .