Latest news with #Laws
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Pets Over People? New Survey Reveals Sacrifices Americans Make For Their Pets
DINKWAPs Lead the Rise of the Pet-First Lifestyle—and It's Reshaping Everything from Travel to Relationships LOS ANGELES, June 18, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A new study found that more than half (56%) of U.S. pet owners say they travel less since getting a pet, and a growing number are prioritizing their pets in ways that are fundamentally changing how we vacation, socialize, and even define family. The national survey, commissioned by leading pet-sitting platform TrustedHousesitters, uncovers that the emotional toll of leaving a pet behind is pushing many owners to cancel plans, ghost dates, and, in some cases, skip family birthdays: 21% of owners say they'd feel less guilty canceling plans with a close friend at the last minute than leaving their pet at home. 1 in 5 owners say they would rather ghost someone after a first date. 17% would feel less guilty skipping a family birthday compared to leaving their pet. 'We're seeing a clear cultural shift, particularly among younger, child-free adults who consider their pets to be their children,' said Angela Laws, Community Manager at TrustedHousesitters. 'They're not just companions—they're family. And that's showing up in everyday decisions about travel, social life, and emotional well-being.' The Emotional Weight of Pet Parenthood The survey of 5,000 U.S. pet owners reveals that for many, the mental strain of leaving a pet behind is stronger than the urge to relax or explore: 61% of pet owners say they worry more about their pet's well-being than their own enjoyment on vacation. Nearly half (49%) of pet owners experience separation anxiety when away. 52% say their pet's sad face while they pack has made them too guilty to go. A third (33%) of pet parents say they spend a significant portion of their vacation on their phones, checking in on their pet or video-calling their sitter. 54% say their travel is impacted because they worry that their pet thinks they've been abandoned. The DINKWAP Effect: Pets as the New Children As birth rates continue to decline and pet ownership hits all-time highs, more Americans are embracing the 'DINKWAP' lifestyle—dual income, no kids, with a pet. The numbers reflect a society where four-legged family members are taking top priority: 16% of owners spent more on a vacation just so they could bring their pets along. 18% would rather leave their partner at home to care for the pet while they vacation solo. 1 in 10 (12%) say they would feel more guilty leaving their pet than their child with a sitter. More surprisingly, 9% admit they would feel more guilty leaving their pet than forgetting their kid's birthday altogether. 'We're not just seeing changing attitudes; we're seeing a redefinition of family structure,' Laws said. 'Pets are a center of family life. And for millions of Americans, that means every plan, trip, or decision includes them.' To connect with a pet sitter or explore more expert insights for pet owners, visit MethodologyThe research was conducted by Opinion Matters, among a sample of 5,000 U.S. pet owners. The data was collected between March 25, 2025, and April 4, 2025. Opinion Matters abides by and employs members of the Market Research Society and follows the MRS code of conduct and ESOMAR principles. About TrustedHousesitters TrustedHousesitters is the leading travel solution for pet people; a global community whose love of pets and travel enables home sharing and pet caring all over the world. The service was founded in Brighton, UK in 2010 and has over 240,000 members in more than 140 countries, responsible for 10 million nights of pet sitting. A subscription gives unlimited access to short and long term sits with no further money changing hands. Sitters explore the world while staying in real homes and enjoying the companionship of pets. Meanwhile, owners enjoy freedom and peace of mind by prioritizing their pets' well-being at home with a trusted companion. TrustedHousesitters assists in facilitating domestic and international travel through pet sitting. Members are responsible for their own research ensuring they meet all visa, entry, and travel requirements for their destination. For more information, go to: Media ContactFor more information please contact
India Today
14-06-2025
- Sport
- India Today
No more bunny hop boundary catches: Cricket's new rule change explained
A major tweak to cricket's boundary fielding rule has been announced by the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), the custodians of the laws of the game. The MCC has amended Law 19.5.2, tightening what is considered a legal airborne fielding effort near the boundary. The rule will come into effect for international cricket from June 17, 2025 and be officially incorporated into the MCC's Laws from October aim is to end confusion and limit catches involving multiple airborne touches or "bunny hops" outside the boundary, which fans and players increasingly viewed as unfair—even if technically examples include Michael Neser's multi-hop catch in BBL 2023 and a 2020 relay catch involving Tom Banton and Matt Renshaw. While fans were in awe of the sensational efforts on both instances, questions were asked about the fairness of such efforts. Quite a few even suggested a rule change. Here's an explainer of the rule change which will deem "bunny hops" illegal when catching along the BUNNY HOP CATCH THAT WAS DEEMED LEGALMichael Neser's juggling act ends Silk's stay!Cue the debate about the Laws of Cricket... #BBL12 (@cricketcomau) January 1, 2023The earlier version of Law 19.5.2 stated: "A fielder who is not in contact with the ground is considered to be grounded beyond the boundary if his/her final contact with the ground, before his/her first contact with the ball, was not entirely within the boundary."advertisementThe rule allowed:Multiple airborne touches of the ball by a fielder who initially jumped from within the catches where teammates could be outside the boundary mid-air, as long as initial conditions were the new rule for boundary catches will workThe updated Law 19.5.2 brings major changes to how catches near the boundary are judged, particularly those involving airborne fielders or relay a detailed breakdown of the changes and how they'll impact changed in the main law (19.5.2)Previously, this rule only applied to the first fielder touching the ball. Under the new version, it applies to every fielder involved in the play — whether or not the ball has already been means in a multi-fielder relay catch, all fielders must meet the same grounding conditions before they touch the 19.5.2.1 – One Airborne Touch from OutsideA fielder is still allowed to jump from outside the boundary and touch the ball once while after that first touch, every time they contact the ground, they must do so within the field of they land or step outside the boundary during the rest of that play — even after completing the catch or throw — it will count as a effect: the fielder gets one chance to touch the ball from beyond the rope. From that point forward, they must be fully inside the field until the ball becomes 19.5.2.2 – Returning the Ball in Relay CatchesIf a fielder jumps from outside the boundary and returns the ball into the field — either by throwing it to another fielder or tapping it back in — they must land inside the field and remain there until the play is they step outside the boundary again during the same delivery, it's ruled a boundary, regardless of the ball's final MCC'S WORDS: "MCC has devised a new wording where the 'bunny hop' wholly beyond the boundary is removed, but these catches where the fielder pushes the ball up from inside the boundary, steps outside and then dives back in to catch the ball, are permitted," a note said."Our solution has been to limit any fielder who has gone outside the boundary to touching the ball while airborne only once, and then, having done so, to be wholly grounded within the boundary for the rest of the duration of that delivery."advertisement"Even if the ball is parried - to another fielder or inside the field of play - if the fielder lands outside the boundary, or subsequently steps outside, then a boundary will be scored."For clarity, that means the fielder gets one chance, and one chance only, to touch the ball having jumped from outside the boundary. After that point, the boundary becomes a hard line - and any time they touch the ground in that delivery, whatever else happens, they must be inside."Must Watch
India.com
14-06-2025
- Sport
- India.com
Cricket Rules Changed: New MCC Law Makes Multiple Airborne Boundary Touches Illegal Under ICC Playing Conditions
In a landmark decision that's set to reshape modern fielding dynamics, the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) has announced a crucial amendment to the law governing boundary catches—specifically targeting the much-debated 'bunny hop' maneuver made famous by Michael Neser during the 2023 Big Bash League (BBL). The MCC's new interpretation, which restricts airborne fielders from making multiple contacts with the ball outside the boundary, will be integrated into ICC's playing conditions this month and officially enter the MCC's Laws in October 2026. Michael Neser's catch for Brisbane Heat against Sydney Sixers lit up BBL 2023. Chasing a lofted shot from Jordan Silk, Neser caught the ball while airborne near the boundary, tossed it up mid-air as his momentum carried him over the rope, jumped again while still airborne outside the field, and palmed the ball back in before returning inside the field of play to complete the dismissal. Though technically legal under the existing Law 19.5.2, the catch caused a storm on social media and among cricketing purists. Many deemed it against the spirit of the game—even though it followed the letter of the law. The MCC has now stepped in to rectify that perception. New Law: One Airborne Touch, Then Back In Under the revised regulation, a fielder who has jumped from outside the boundary is allowed only one touch of the ball while airborne. To complete the catch legally, they must land wholly within the boundary afterward. Any second contact made while still airborne outside the rope, or if the fielder lands outside after that touch, will automatically result in a boundary. Relay catches will also fall under this umbrella. If a fielder touches the ball from outside the rope—even to pass it to a teammate—they must return within the field of play before the ball is caught or grounded again. This essentially ends the multi-contact aerial acrobatics that have become increasingly common in limited-overs cricket. Why MCC Felt Change Was Needed In an internal note circulated by the MCC and shared with ICC member boards, the custodians of the game acknowledged that while these efforts have produced "some spectacular" moments, they have also resulted in "unusual-looking catches that, to the majority of the cricketing public, feel unfair." Specifically, the MCC cited Neser's effort as an example of a fielder who had 'gone too far' in exploiting a legal loophole. The change, according to MCC, aims to align the laws more closely with public perception of fairness while still preserving the artistry of fielding. What Remains and What Changes Importantly, Law 19.5.2's core principle—that a fielder's last contact with the ground before first touching the ball must be inside the boundary—remains intact. What changes is the allowance for multiple mid-air touches outside the boundary, which has now been removed. The MCC stopped short of rolling the law back to its pre-2010 version, which would have invalidated many of today's spectacular catches. The likes of Harleen Deol's jaw-dropping catch against England and Alex Hales' efforts in BBL 2020 are still legal under the new version, as long as the fielder makes the final play inside the boundary. When the Rule Takes Effect The ICC will implement the change immediately as part of the new World Test Championship (WTC) cycle starting June 17 with Sri Lanka vs Bangladesh in Galle. However, the formal incorporation into the MCC Laws will occur in October 2026, during the next round of global law revisions.
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court ignores precedent instead of overruling it in allowing president to fire officials whom Congress tried to make independent
What may be one of the U.S. Supreme Court's most important and far-reaching rulings in decades dropped in late May 2025 in an order that probably didn't get a second – or even first – glance from most Americans. But this not-quite-two-page ruling, as technical and procedural as they come, potentially rewrites a major principle of constitutional law and may restructure the operation of the federal government. The case is dry in a way only lawyers could love, but its implications are enormous. The dispute began when President Donald Trump fired two Biden-era officials: Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and Cathy Harris, a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, like the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Reserve, are among more than 50 independent agencies established by Congress to help the president carry out the law. Though technically located within the executive branch, independent agencies are designed to serve the public at large rather than the president. To ensure these agencies are devoted to their public mission, not the will or whims of a president, congressional statutes generally permit the president to remove leaders of these agencies only for 'good cause.' Malfeasance in office, neglect of duty, or inefficiency generally constitute 'good cause.' Other executive branch agencies, such as the FBI, Food and Drug Administration and Department of Homeland Security are entirely under presidential command – if he wants their leaders out, out they go. But independent agencies, in existence since the late 19th century, are to carry out congressional policy free from the president's purview and his political pressure. Because independent agencies are creatures of Congress housed within the executive branch, there is long-standing disagreement among scholars about just how much power the president should have over them. In the two firings, there was agreement that Trump had violated the relevant statute by firing Wilcox and Harris without 'good cause.' He justified Wilcox's removal, in part, because she did not share his policy preferences. For Harris, he gave no reason at all. But the bigger issue was whether the law itself was constitutional: Could Congress limit why or how a president can remove employees of the executive branch? The root of the problem lies within the Constitution. Although Article 2 specifically gives the president the power to 'appoint' certain federal officials, it says nothing about the power to fire -– or 'remove' – them. Conservative legal scholars propose, under what's called the 'unitary executive theory,' that because the president 'is' the executive branch, he has complete authority, including removal, over all who serve within it. Only with the unfettered ability to fire anyone who serves under him can the president fulfill his constitutionally mandated duty to ensure that 'the Laws be faithfully executed.' Opponents have countered that this ignores fundamental aspects of our constitutional framework: the framers' devotion to checks and balances, their aversion toward monarchical, kinglike rule, and their determination to put policymaking in the hands of Congress. These questions are not new. The Supreme Court first took up the issue in 1926 in Myers v. United States, when Chief Justice – and former president – William Howard Taft held that Congress could not limit the president's ability to fire an Oregon postmaster, writing that 'the power to remove inferior executive officers … is an incident of the power to appoint them.' Less than a decade later, however, the court ruled in Humphrey's Executor v. United States that the Constitution did not grant the president an 'illimitable power of removal,' at least over certain types of officials. This included the head of the Federal Trade Commission, whose firing by President Franklin Roosevelt had sparked the case. Humphrey's Executor stood basically untouched for decades, until Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito – both of whom had previously served in the executive branch – were appointed. With a now-solid conservative majority, the Supreme Court invalidated restrictions on the president's ability to remove members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in 2009. Two years after the arrival of fellow executive branch alumnus Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, the court struck down the 'good cause' removal restriction for the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Rather than explicitly overrule Humphrey's Executor, however, the justices declared that these agencies were factually distinct from the Federal Trade Commission – leaders of one were protected by a 'two-layer' removal system and the other because it was run by a single individual, not a multimember board. Because Humphrey's Executor was still good law, and the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board were structured like the Federal Trade Commission, district courts in 2025 initially held that the firings of Wilcox and Harris were unlawful. On April 9, 2025, Trump filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court, asking it to put the district court decisions on hold. On May 22, the Supreme Court granted that request, at least while the cases proceed through the lower courts. The court did not decide on the constitutionality of the removal statute, but the ruling is nonetheless a major victory for Trump. He can now fire not only Wilcox and Harris but also potentially the heads of any independent agency. Low-level civil servants may also be at risk. In the unsigned order, the high court echoed unitary executive theory, stating, 'Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the Presidents … he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions.' It simply ignored Humphrey's Executor altogether, leaving its value as precedent unclear. The Supreme Court also said that the holding did not apply to the Federal Reserve Board. That 'uniquely structured, quasi-private entity' would remain free from executive control via removal. Such an explicit carve-out in legal doctrine is striking but responds directly to claims made by litigants and political commentators of the dire economic consequences that could result were the president to have free rein over the Federal Reserve's chairman. In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan blasted the majority for allowing the president to overrule Humphrey's Executor 'by fiat,' a result made even worse because the court had done so via the so-called shadow docket, in the absence of full briefing or oral argument. Such 'short-circuiting' of the 'usual deliberative process' is, she wrote, a wholly inappropriate way to make a 'massive change in the law.' What happens now? The National Labor Relations Board is paralyzed, and the Merit Systems Protection Board is somewhat hamstrung, with both lacking the quorum necessary to act. Cases about the firing of Harris, Wilcox and multiple other officials will bedevil lower courts as they try to figure out whether Humphrey's Executor still stands, even as a shadow of its former self. Trump aims to continue axing federal employees, even as the administration struggles to rehire others. And, already asked again to make major legal change on its emergency docket, the Supreme Court will need to determine whether such change warrants more than the few paragraphs of explanation it gave in the ruling on the Wilcox and Harris firings. If, as seems likely, the court ultimately overturns Humphrey's Executor, Kagan's dissent serves as a warning voiced by others as well: A decision that allows the president to have total control over the heads of more than 50 independent agencies – agencies that pursue the public interest in areas from financial regulation to the environment, to nuclear safety – could shift their focus from serving the public to pleasing the president, profoundly affecting the lives of many Americans. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Claire B. Wofford, College of Charleston Read more: Trump's claims of vast presidential powers run up against Article 2 of the Constitution and exceed previous presidents' power grabs Federal threats against local officials who don't cooperate with immigration orders could be unconstitutional − Justice Antonin Scalia ruled against similar plans George Washington, a real estate investor and successful entrepreneur, knew the difference between running a business and running the government In 2022, I donated $20 to ActBlue.
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
American Idol alum Alex Miller to play at funeral for drummer, studio founder Mark Laws
Services will be held Saturday for drummer Mark Laws, who was shot to death on May 25. Laws, 62, of Harrogate, Tennessee, will be honored in a ceremony at the Cawood Funeral Home Chapel in Middlesboro, Kentucky, from 1 to 3 p.m. A procession will follow the chapel service, and Laws will be buried at the Kibert Cemetery in Arthur, Tennessee, where graveside services will also be held. Laws was shot twice with a 9mm handgun at a home on Old Pearman Lane in Cumberland Gap, Tennessee, according to a Claiborne County homicide affidavit. Claiborne County Sheriffs deputies arrested Laws' stepson, Maxwell Alan Madon, 25, and charged him with criminal homicide. Laws founded The Curve Recording Studio and worked with some of the biggest names in country music. He played drums for Little Jimmy Dickens, Bill Carlilse, Larry Cordle and Pam Perry. For the past five years, Laws had been working with American Idol alum Alex Miller (who was on the television show's 19th season) as a drummer and band leader. Miller, a recording artist for Billy Jam Records, will play at the funeral. Laws is survived by his wife, Kristi; son Blake (Christy) Laws; grandchildren Brady and Caleigh Beth Laws; mother Patsy Laws; brothers Donnie (Anna) Laws and Randy (Barb) Laws; sister Robin (Greg) Daniels; and father-in-law Don Gulley, as well as many nieces and nephews, a funeral announcement said. Laws made a name for himself drumming for the Renfro Valley Barn Dance band. This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Laws played drums at Renfro Valley Barn Dance and with 'Idol' alum
