Apple Stock Today: A Rise In Volatility Would Generate Profits In This Options Trade

Supreme Court decision could have endless impact on transgender medical care

Alabama left out of playoff as committee rewards SMU's wins over Crimson Tide's strong scheduleNone

Nvidia's stock dips after China opens probe of the AI chip company for violating anti-monopoly laws - The Associated Press

Shopping on Shein and Temu for holiday gifts? You're not the only one

OTTAWA - First Nations leaders are split over next steps after a landmark $47.8-billion child welfare reform deal with Canada was struck down, prompting differing legal opinions from both sides. The Assembly of First Nations and a board member of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society have received competing legal opinions on potential ways forward. Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict says the chiefs he represents are still hoping the agreement that chiefs outside the province voted down two months ago is not moot. Chiefs in Ontario are interveners in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal case that led to its realization. He added there are also concerns that some of the elements in the new negotiation mandate outlined by chiefs in an October assembly go beyond the current governance structure of the Assembly of First Nations. “There will have to be action by the Assembly of First Nations in the very near future to advance these positions, but you also need willing partners,” Benedict said. “We’re still considering what our options are.” Those options are also being debated in legal reviews commissioned by the Assembly of First Nations and a board member of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, which are both parties to the human rights case, along with Nishnawbe Aski Nation. Khelsilem, a chairperson from the Squamish Nation who penned a resolution that defeated the deal in October, critiqued the stance of Ontario First Nations by saying they negotiated a “bad agreement” for First Nations outside the province and now that chiefs want to go back to the table for a better deal, they want to split from the process entirely. “It potentially undermines the collective unity of First Nations to achieve something that is going to benefit all of us,” he said. The $47.8-billion agreement was struck in July after decades of advocacy and litigation from First Nations and experts, seeking to redress discrimination against First Nations children who were torn from their families and placed in foster care. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal said Canada’s underfunding was discriminatory because it meant kids living on reserve were given fewer services than those living off reserves, and tasked Canada with reaching an agreement with First Nations to reform the system. The agreement was meant to cover 10 years of funding for First Nations to take control of their own child welfare services from the federal government. Chiefs and service providers critiqued the deal for months, saying it didn’t go far enough to ensure an end to the discrimination. They have also blasted the federal government for what they say is its failure to consult with First Nations in negotiations, and for the exclusion of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, which helped launched the initial human rights complaint. In October at a special chiefs assembly in Calgary, the deal was struck down through two resolutions. The Assembly of First Nations sought a legal review of those resolutions by Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP — a firm where the former national chief of the organization, Perry Bellegarde, works as a special adviser. In the legal review from Fasken, it appears as though the assembly asked for direction on how to get “rid” of two resolutions used to vote down the deal, with an employee of the firm saying they can review the resolutions together if they want them both gone, or they can “leave room for compromise” with one of the resolutions. In a statement, the Assembly of First Nations said the review was conducted to assess the legal, technical and operational aspects of the resolutions to ensure their “effective implementation.” “The opinions formed by external counsel are their own and do not reflect the views or positions of the AFN,” said Andrew Bisson, the chief executive officer, who added it’s not unusual for the organization to seek such reviews. Bisson did not address the language used by a Fasken employee to “get rid” of resolutions, but said “the legal and technical reviews were conducted in good faith, not to undermine the chiefs’ direction. The chiefs have provided clear direction, and the AFN is committed to following that direction.” The legal reviews from Fasken, dated Nov. 15, argue that the October resolutions on child welfare require a significant review of who voted for them, along with changes to the organization’s charter should they be implemented. Resolution 60 called for a rejection of the final settlement agreement, and for the establishment of a Children’s Chiefs Commission that will be representative of all regions and negotiate long-term reforms. It also called for the AFN’s executive committee to “unconditionally include” the Caring Society in negotiations. Fasken said that commission is contrary to the AFN’s charter, and the law, because the AFN’s executive committee doesn’t have the power to create one, and that the executive committee “alone” has the authority to execute mandates on behalf of the assembly. It adds there are no accountability measures for the new negotiation body, and that it will represent regions that are not participants in the AFN. Resolution 61, which built upon resolution 60, is similarly against the charter for the same reasons, the review says. As such, it says, the resolutions can’t be implemented. The firm also wrote that there were alleged conflicts of interest during the October vote, saying “numerous proxies were also employees, shareholders, directors, agents or otherwise had a vested interest” in the First Nations child and family service agencies whose interests were the subject of the resolutions. Chief Joe Miskokomon of Chippewas of the Thames First Nation in southwestern Ontario called that “political deception.” In response to that review, a board member of the Caring Society, which has been a vocal critic of the July deal, sought their own. The review penned by Aird Berlis for Mary Teegee and dated Dec. 2 stated it was “inappropriate for the AFN to seek, and not disclose, legal opinions which are then cited to attempt to second-guess decisions already made by the First Nations in Assembly.” It also states that while the AFN’s vice-president of strategic policy and integration, Amber Potts, raised concerns with the movers and seconders of the resolutions, the entirety of the legal opinion the assembly sought was not shared with them. Teegee’s review challenges that of the AFN’s by saying the resolutions are consistent with the AFN’s charter, and that nothing restricts First Nations in assembly from expressing their sovereign will by delegating authority to another entity. “AFN’s role and purpose at all times is to effect the sovereign will of First Nations, however it is expressed, on ‘any matter’ that they see fit,” the review from Aird Berlis reads. “It is too late to attempt to question the resolutions. They are now final.” This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 9, 2024.

Shopping on Shein and Temu for holiday gifts? You're not the only one

Olivia Olson scored 18 points, including eight straight to open the fourth quarter, as the No. 23 Michigan Wolverines survived a 60-54 scare from the Northwestern Wildcats in the Big Ten opener for each team in Ann Arbor, Mich. Northwestern (4-4, 0-1 Big Ten) led throughout the third quarter and took a four-point lead into the fourth, but Olson capped her 8-0 burst with a 3-pointer, and Syla Swords also nailed a trey to put the Wolverines (8-1, 1-0) ahead 50-44. Michigan has won eight straight games since opening the season with a six-point loss to then-No. 1 South Carolina. Caileigh Walsh's 3-pointer put the Wildcats back in front 53-52 with 3:36 to go. Michigan responded by scoring eight of the game's last nine points, six by Jordan Hobbs. Hobbs finished with 16 points and teammate Mila Holloway had 10. Kyla Jones led Northwestern with 14 points and Walsh notched 10 before fouling out. No. 4 Texas 93, James Madison 62 Madison Booker, Jordan Lee and Rori Harmon dominated the first half as the Longhorns clobbered the host Dukes in Harrisonburg, Va. Booker scored 21 points, Lee added 20 and Harmon 19 by combining on 25-of-33 shooting. They had 49 of their points in the first half as Texas (7-1) piled up a 58-29 halftime lead. The Longhorns, who entered seventh in the nation in scoring at 90 points per game, shot 54 percent for the game to 40 percent for the Dukes. Roshala Scott led James Madison (7-3) with 22 points and Peyton McDaniel and Ashanti Barnes had 12 apiece. McDaniel added eight rebounds for the Dukes, who had 24 turnovers. No. 10 Notre Dame 93, Syracuse 62 The Fighting Irish pulled away from a seven-point halftime lead to demolish the host Orange in the ACC opener for both schools. The trio of Sonia Citron, Hannah Hidalgo and Olivia Miles led Notre Dame's win with double-doubles. Citron had 25 points and 11 rebounds, Hidalgo racked up 24 and 10, respectively, and Miles shone with 20 points, 10 rebounds and eight assists. Hidalgo, third in Division I in scoring (24.6 ppg), netted nine points and Citron had eight in the third quarter, as Notre Dame (7-2, 1-0 ACC) outscored Syracuse (4-6, 0-1) 29-13 to pull away. Keira Scott posted 16 points and Sophie Burrows tacked on 13 for the Orange, who shot only 32.5 percent. The Irish shot 50 percent and thrived despite 20 turnovers. No. 16 North Carolina 72, Coppin State 46 The Tar Heels built a comfortable halftime lead and used its bench players freely in devouring the Eagles in Chapel Hill, N.C. North Carolina (9-1) entered second-best in the nation in scoring defense at 49.1 points per game and excelled again, holding Coppin State to 27.3 percent shooting. Meanwhile, the Tar Heels shot 44.4 percent while having 12 players enter the scoring column, led by Maria Gakdeng's 10 points on 5-of-6 shooting. Reniya Kelly scored six of her eight points in the first quarter as North Carolina took a 23-13 lead. The Tar Heels grew the lead to 46-27 by intermission. Tiffany Hammond and Angel Jones scored 12 points apiece for Coppin State (6-5), and Laila Lawrence added 10 points with 10 rebounds. No. 18 Ole Miss 85, Tennessee State 38 The Rebels had more points by halftime than the Lady Tigers scored in the game after jumping out to a 14-2 lead in the first quarter and 44-19 by intermission. Kennedy Todd-Williams led Ole Miss (6-3) with 15 points and seven rebounds, and Sira Thienou added 12 and six, respectively. The Rebels shot 46 percent for the game. Ole Miss began the day seventh in the nation in scoring defense at 49.8 points allowed per game, and it punished Tennessee State to the tune of 23.6 percent shooting and 22 forced turnovers. XaiOnna Whitfield led the Lady Tigers (4-6) with 10 points. No. 20 Iowa State 82, Central Michigan 56 Audi Crooks scored 19 points on 9-of-12 shooting and added 10 rebounds as the Cyclones slammed the Chippewas in Ames, Iowa. Emily Ryan netted 10 of her 12 points in the first quarter and Crooks scored nine in the period as Iowa State (8-2) jumped out to a 31-13 lead and enjoyed a cushion of at least 18 points the rest of the way. Addy Brown added 18 points for the Cyclones, who shot 52.5 percent and rolled despite having 20 turnovers. Jayda Mosley led Central Michigan (3-6) with 11 points and Madi Morson and Ayanna-Sarai Darrington added 10 apiece. The Chippewas shot only 33.3 percent from the floor and had 26 turnovers. No. 24 Michigan State 89, DePaul 61 The unbeaten Spartans put four scorers in double figures as they systematically disposed of the Blue Demons in East Lansing, Mich. Jaddan Simmons finished with 18 points, five rebounds and five assists, and Julia Ayrault stuffed the stat sheet with 17 points, 12 rebounds, five assists and three steals for Michigan State (9-0). Emma Shumate and Jocelyn Tate had 12 and 10 points, respectively. Jorie Allen put up 15 points, 11 boards, seven assists and three steals and Grace Carstensen also notched 15 points for DePaul (3-7), which shot just 28.8 percent despite hitting 9 of 18 of its 3-point attempts. The Spartans led by seven after one quarter and 17 at halftime before coasting through the second half. No. 25 Nebraska 84, Minnesota 65 Strong first quarters by Callin Hake and Amiah Hargrove sent the Cornhuskers on their way to pinning the first loss on the Golden Gophers in the Big Ten Conference opener for each team. Hake scored eight of her 11 points in the first period and Hargrove eight of her 10 as Nebraska (8-1, 1-0 Big Ten) seized a 27-11 lead and never looked back. Hargrove scored eight of the Cornhuskers' 10 straight points to end the quarter. Alberte Rimdal led the winners with 12 points and Alexis Markowski added 11 with nine rebounds. Mallory Heyer collected 12 points and eight rebounds for Minnesota (10-1, 0-1). Tori McKinney scored 11 points and Grace Crocholski and Alexsia Rose 10 apiece, but the Golden Gophers hit just 35.2 percent of their shots. --Field Level Media

Ruling on Monday after an emergency hearing at Belfast High Court, judge Mr Justice McAlinden rejected loyalist activist Jamie Bryson’s application for leave for a full judicial review hearing against Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn. The judge said Mr Bryson, who represented himself as a personal litigant, had “very ably argued” his case with “perseverance and cogency”, and had raised some issues of law that caused him “some concern”. However, he found against him on the three grounds of challenge against Mr Benn. Mr Bryson had initially asked the court to grant interim relief in his challenge to prevent Tuesday’s democratic consent motion being heard in the Assembly, pending the hearing of a full judicial review. However, he abandoned that element of his leave application during proceedings on Monday, after the judge made clear he would be “very reluctant” to do anything that would be “trespassing into the realms” of a democratically elected Assembly. Mr Bryson had challenged Mr Benn’s move to initiate the democratic consent process that is required under the UK and EU’s Windsor Framework deal to extend the trading arrangements that apply to Northern Ireland. The previously stated voting intentions of the main parties suggest that Stormont MLAs will vote to continue the measures for another four years when they convene to debate the motion on Tuesday. After the ruling, Mr Bryson told the court he intended to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Any hearing was not expected to come later on Monday. In applying for leave, the activist’s argument was founded on three key grounds. The first was the assertion that Mr Benn failed to make sufficient efforts to ensure Stormont’s leaders undertook a public consultation exercise in Northern Ireland before the consent vote. The second was that the Secretary of State allegedly failed to demonstrate he had paid special regard to protecting Northern Ireland’s place in the UK customs territory in triggering the vote. The third ground centred on law changes introduced by the previous UK government earlier this year, as part of its Safeguarding the Union deal to restore powersharing at Stormont. He claimed that if the amendments achieved their purpose, namely, to safeguard Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom, then it would be unlawful to renew and extend post-Brexit trading arrangements that have created economic barriers between the region and the rest of the UK. In 2023, the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the trading arrangements for Northern Ireland are lawful. The appellants in the case argued that legislation passed at Westminster to give effect to the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement conflicted with the 1800 Acts of Union that formed the United Kingdom, particularly article six of that statute guaranteeing unfettered trade within the UK. The Supreme Court found that while article six of the Acts of Union has been “modified” by the arrangements, that was done with the express will of a sovereign parliament, and so therefore was lawful. Mr Bryson contended that amendments made to the Withdrawal Agreement earlier this year, as part of the Safeguarding the Union measures proposed by the Government to convince the DUP to return to powersharing, purport to reassert and reinforce Northern Ireland’s constitutional status in light of the Supreme Court judgment. He told the court that it was “quite clear” there was “inconsistency” between the different legal provisions. “That inconsistency has to be resolved – there is an arguable case,” he told the judge. However, Dr Tony McGleenan KC, representing the Government, described Mr Bryson’s argument as “hopeless” and “not even arguable”. He said all three limbs of the case had “no prospect of success and serve no utility”. He added: “This is a political argument masquerading as a point of constitutional law and the court should see that for what it is.” After rising to consider the arguments, Justice McAlinden delivered his ruling shortly after 7pm. The judge dismissed the application on the first ground around the lack consultation, noting that such an exercise was not a “mandatory” obligation on Mr Benn. On the second ground, he said there were “very clear” indications that the Secretary of State had paid special regard to the customs territory issues. On the final ground, Justice McAlinden found there was no inconsistency with the recent legislative amendments and the position stated in the Supreme Court judgment. “I don’t think any such inconsistency exists,” he said. He said the amendments were simply a “restatement” of the position as set out by the Supreme Court judgment, and only served to confirm that replacing the Northern Ireland Protocol with the Windsor Framework had not changed the constitutional fact that Article Six of the Acts of Union had been lawfully “modified” by post-Brexit trading arrangements. “It does no more than that,” he said. The framework, and its predecessor the NI Protocol, require checks and customs paperwork on goods moving from Great Britain into Northern Ireland. Under the arrangements, which were designed to ensure no hardening of the Irish land border post-Brexit, Northern Ireland continues to follow many EU trade and customs rules. This has proved highly controversial, with unionists arguing the system threatens Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom. Advocates of the arrangements say they help insulate the region from negative economic consequences of Brexit. A dispute over the so-called Irish Sea border led to the collapse of the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2022, when the DUP withdrew then-first minister Paul Givan from the coalition executive. The impasse lasted two years and ended in January when the Government published its Safeguarding the Union measures. Under the terms of the framework, a Stormont vote must be held on articles five to 10 of the Windsor Framework, which underpin the EU trade laws in force in Northern Ireland, before they expire. The vote must take place before December 17. Based on the numbers in the Assembly, MLAs are expected to back the continuation of the measures for another four years, even though unionists are likely to oppose the move. DUP leader Gavin Robinson has already made clear his party will be voting against continuing the operation of the Windsor Framework. Unlike other votes on contentious issues at Stormont, the motion does not require cross-community support to pass. If it is voted through with a simple majority, the arrangements are extended for four years. In that event, the Government is obliged to hold an independent review of how the framework is working. If it wins cross-community support, which is a majority of unionists and a majority of nationalists, then it is extended for eight years. The chances of it securing such cross-community backing are highly unlikely.Shopping on Shein and Temu for holiday gifts? You're not the only oneExcerpt from Carol Mithers’ book, ‘Rethinking Rescue’

(The Center Square) – The latest federal numbers show the U.S. deficit is soaring as President Joe Biden heads out of office. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office released its monthly budget review on Monday, which showed that in the first two months of this fiscal year, the federal government has run up a deficit of $622 billion. “That amount is $242 billion more than the deficit recorded during the same period last fiscal year,” CBO said in its report . That figure means the deficit is nearly 40% higher than this time last year. “The most alarming turkey in November was the federal government’s inability to live within its means,” Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said in a statement. “We are only two months into the fiscal year, and we have already borrowed a staggering $622 billion, with $365 billion in the month of November alone." Deficits never surpassed one trillion dollars before the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, they remain well above one trillion and for this next fiscal year are well beyond the pace to surpass $1 trillion. The deficit last fiscal year was about $1.8 trillion. Billionaire Elon Musk, now an advisor to President-elect Donald Trump, lamented the debt, which is about $36 trillion, on X Monday. “If we don’t fix the deficit, everything will suffer, including essential spending like DoD, Medicare & Social Security,” Musk said. “It’s not optional.” CBO did explain that some of the increase is from accounting changes. From CBO: The change in the deficit was influenced by the timing of outlays and revenues alike. Outlays in October 2023 were reduced by shifts in the timing of certain federal payments that otherwise would have been due on October 1, 2023, which fell on a Sunday. (Those payments were made in September 2023.) Outlays in November 2024 were boosted by the shift to that month of payments due December 1, 2024, a Saturday. If not for those shifts, the deficit thus far in fiscal year 2025 would have been $541 billion, or $88 billion more than the shortfall at this point last year, and outlays would have been $38 billion more.”