SUMMARY / RELATED TOPICS

Central Australia

Central Australia known as the Alice Springs Region, is one of the five regions in the Northern Territory of Australia. The term Central Australia is used to describe an area centred on Alice Springs, it is sometimes referred to as Centralia. The region is located in the southern part of the Northern Territory spanning from the west on the Western Australian Border to the east on the Queensland border; the main town in Central Australia is Alice Springs. Whilst a few of these townships are stations, the vast majority of them are indigenous Australian communities; the region covers an area of 546,046 square kilometres, which makes up forty percent of the Northern Territory. The following Local Government Areas make up the region: Town of Alice Springs Central Desert Region MacDonnell Region Yulara The total population of Central Australia is estimated to be 41,000. Alice Springs, the main urban area of Central Australia, is predominantly Anglo-Celtic Australian, with 25% Aboriginal population. Altogether, the population of the region is between 40% to 45% Aboriginal.

The region is dry, has a tropical climate receiving on average just 150 millimetres of rainfall annually. Central Australia, Australian federal territory 1927–1931 Regions of the Northern Territory Centre points of Australia Alice Springs Region Alice Springs Film and Television

(357439) 2004 BL86

2004 BL86 is a bright sub-kilometer asteroid and binary system, classified as near-Earth object and hazardous asteroid of the Apollo group 300 meters in diameter. It was discovered on 30 January 2004 by astronomers of the Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research at Lincoln Laboratory's Experimental Test Site near Socorro, New Mexico, its 70-meter moon was discovered during the asteroid's close approach to the Earth in January 2015. On 26 January 2015 at 16:20 UTC, 2004 BL86 passed 3.1 lunar distances, from Earth. The asteroid peaked around apparent magnitude 9 and was near the celestial equator; the asteroid was larger. Near closest approach the asteroid was moving about 2.5 degrees per hour. The asteroid came to opposition on 27 January 2015 at 04:37 UTC. Around 5:00 UTC, the asteroid was near M44; the 26 January 2015 approach of 3.1 lunar distances was the closest approach of 2004 BL86 for at least the next 200 years. For comparison, 2015 TB145, about twice the size of 2004 BL86, passed 486,800 km, or 1.3 lunar distances, from Earth on 31 October 2015.

A minor-planet moon, provisionally designated S/2015 1, was first detected by ground-based telescopes by Joe Pollock and Petr Pravec. Observations by the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex and Green Bank Telescope confirmed that it is a binary asteroid with a secondary 70 meters across; the secondary is estimated to orbit at least 500 meters from the primary. About 16% of asteroids over 200 meters in diameter are thought to be binaries; this minor planet was numbered on 27 March 2013. As of 2017, it has not been named. Discovery Circumstances: Numbered Minor Planets - – Minor Planet Center Asteroids with Satellites, Robert Johnston, johnstonsarchive.net PSI Scientists Study Surface Composition of Asteroid 2004 BL86 During Close Flyby of Earth, Planetary Science Institute, 27 January 2015 Asteroid Lightcurve Database, query form 2004 BL86 at NeoDyS-2, Near Earth Objects—Dynamic Site Ephemeris · Obs prediction · Orbital info · MOID · Proper elements · Obs info · Close · Physical info · NEOCC 2004 BL86 at the JPL Small-Body Database Close approach · Discovery · Ephemeris · Orbit diagram · Orbital elements · Physical parameters

Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management

Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, 824 F. Supp. 2d 968, was a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, Karen Golinski, challenged the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined, for the purposes of federal law, marriage as being between one man and one woman, spouse as a husband or wife of the opposite sex. On February 22, 2012, the District Court held section 3 unconstitutional; the case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Department of Justice, on July 3, 2012, asked the Supreme Court to take the case before the Ninth Circuit decided it, so it could be heard with two other DOMA-related cases, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services; the Ninth Circuit delayed oral argument pending action by the Supreme Court. Following that Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, the appeal was dismissed on July 23, 2013.

In 2008, when California first extended marriage to same-sex couples, Karen Golinski, an attorney and 19-year employee of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, married Amy Cunninghis. Golinski subsequently applied for family medical insurance coverage through her employer; when the application was denied, she filed a complaint under the Ninth Circuit's Employment Dispute Resolution Plan. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, in his administrative capacity, ruled in 2009 that she was entitled to spousal health benefits, but the Office of Personnel Management announced that it would not comply with the ruling. In January 2010, Golinski filed suit against the OPM in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of California to enforce Kozinski's order. On March 17, 2011, U. S. District Judge Jeffrey White dismissed the suit on procedural grounds but invited Golinski to amend her suit to argue the unconstitutionality of DOMA Section 3, which she did on April 14. On February 23, 2011, while the court was still considering the original petition, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department would no longer defend DOMA, but would help ensure Congress had a fair opportunity to defend the law.

In response, the U. S. House of Representatives formed the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend DOMA in this case, as well as Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. On BLAG's behalf, former United States Solicitor General Paul Clement filed a motion to dismiss, raising arguments avoided by the Department of Justice that DOMA's definition of marriage is valid "because only a man and a woman can beget a child together, because historical experience has shown that a family consisting of a married father and mother is an effective social structure for raising children". On July 1, 2011, the DOJ filed a brief in support of Golinski's suit, in which it detailed for the first time its case for heightened scrutiny based on "a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities" and its arguments that DOMA Section 3 fails to meet that standard. A September 20, 2011, letter from New York Roman Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan, which included a three-page analysis by the U.

S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, cited the brief as evidence that the DOJ "has shifted... to attacking DOMA's constitutionality". Dolan predicted current federal actions would "precipitate a national conflict between church and state of enormous proportions and to the detriment of both institutions."White offered to make a video recording of the hearing unless any of the parties objected, which BLAG did. On February 22, 2012, White ruled for Golinski finding DOMA "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution." He wrote that Section 3 of DOMA could not pass the "heightened scrutiny" or the "rational basis" test. He wrote, The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further.

He ordered. Tara Borelli, the lead attorney for Lambda Legal, who represented Golinski, said "This ruling... spells doom for DOMA". On February 24, BLAG filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Based on White's ruling and absent a request to the contrary from BLAG, on March 9 the OPM notified Golinski's insurer that it no longer objected to Golinski's wife enrolling in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, the point at issue in Golinski's complaint. On March 26, the DOJ, with the support of Golinski's attorneys, asked the Ninth Circuit to expedite the case by granting en banc review, eliminating the usual review by a three-judge panel. On May 22, 2012, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition. On July 3, the DOJ filed its response to the Ninth Circuit appeal and at the same time asked the Supreme Court to review the case before the Ninth Circuit decides it, so it can be heard together with two other cases in which DOMA Section 3 was held unconstitutional, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services.

Two weeks on July 16, a writ for certiorari before judgment was filed in another DOMA case, Windsor v. United States. Golinski's attorneys supported the DOJ's request for certiorari on July 2