GE suspends Covid vaccine, take a look at guidelines after excessive courtroom nixes Biden mandate

An employee helps install a traction motor on the truck of a General Electric Evolution Series Tier 4 diesel locomotive at the GE Manufacturing Solutions facility in Fort Worth, Texas.

Luke Sharret | Bloomberg | Getty Images

General Electric suspended its Covid vaccine and testing requirements on Friday after the Supreme Court blocked the Biden administration’s mandate, a company spokesman told CNBC.

GE, which had 174,000 employees at the end of 2020, has encouraged its employees to get vaccinated, the spokesman said.

The conservative majority of the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision, called the Biden administration’s requirements a “blunt instrument” that “makes no distinctions by industry or risk of exposure to Covid-19.”

In a statement following the court decision, President Joe Biden urged companies to voluntarily implement the vaccination and testing rules.

“The court has ruled that my administration cannot use the authority granted to it by Congress to require this action,” Biden said. “But that doesn’t stop me from using my voice as president to advocate for employers to do the right thing to protect the health and economy of Americans.”

Labor Secretary Marty Walsh has vowed to use the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s existing power to hold companies accountable for protecting workers from Covid.

“We urge all employers to require workers to be vaccinated or tested weekly to most effectively combat this deadly virus in the workplace,” Walsh said in a statement Thursday. “Employers are responsible for the safety of their workers in the workplace.”

The American Medical Association, one of the largest medical associations in the US, contradicted that the Supreme Court blocked “one of the most effective tools in the fight against further transmission and death from this aggressive virus”.

“Workplace transmission has been an important factor in the spread of Covid-19,” said AMA President Dr. Gerald Harmon. “More than ever, workers in all settings across the country need sound, evidence-based protection from Covid-19 infection, hospitalization and death.”

Harmon urged companies to protect their workers from the disease. A number of large companies – including Citigroup, Nike and Columbia Sportswear – have announced plans to lay off unvaccinated workers.

The Covid-Omicron variant is driving new infections to unprecedented levels. The US is reporting an average of more than 786,000 new infections each day, a 29% increase from the previous week, according to a CNBC analysis of data from Johns Hopkins University.

Additionally, based on federal data going back to the summer of 2020, hospitalizations are at a pandemic high. About 151,000 Americans were in hospitals with Covid as of Friday, a seven-day moving average of health and social services data shows, up 23%. from a week earlier. That number includes both patients who have been admitted to hospital due to Covid and those who have tested positive after admission.

— CNBC’s Nate Rattner contributed to this report

Supreme Courtroom blocks Biden Covid vaccine mandate for companies, permits health-care employee rule

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Biden administration from enforcing its comprehensive vaccination or testing requirements for large private companies, but allowed a vaccination mandate for medical facilities that accept Medicare or Medicaid payments.

The verdicts came three days after the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s emergency measures for companies went into effect.

The mandate required workers in companies with 100 or more employees to be vaccinated or present a negative Covid test weekly to enter the workplace. Also, unvaccinated workers were required to wear masks when working indoors.

“Although Congress has undeniably granted OSHA authority to regulate occupational hazards, it has not conferred that agency authority to regulate public health more broadly,” the court wrote in an unsigned opinion.

“Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans selected solely because they work for employers with more than 100 employees certainly falls into the latter category,” the court wrote.

A protester holds a “Freedoms & Mandates Don’t Mix” sign in front of the US Supreme Court Friday, January 7, 2022 while discussing two federal vaccination measures in Washington, DC, United States.

Al Drago | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Liberal Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan disagreed, writing that the majority had usurped power from Congress, the President and OSHA without legal basis.

“With the pandemic still raging, this court is telling the agency charged with protecting worker safety that it may not do so in all required workplaces,” they said in dissent.

“As sickness and death continue to rise, this court is telling the Authority that it cannot respond as effectively as possible. Without a legal basis, the court usurps a decision that rightfully belongs to others. It undermines the capacity of appropriate federal officials to act well within their authority to protect American workers from serious danger,” they wrote.

President Joe Biden said in a statement the Supreme Court chose to block requirements that are life-saving for workers. Biden called on states and companies to increase and voluntarily implement vaccination requirements to protect workers, customers and the broader community.

“The Court has ruled that my administration cannot use the powers granted to it by Congress to require this action, but that does not prevent me from using my voice as President to advocate for employers to do the right thing, to protect the health and economy of Americans,” Biden said.

Labor Secretary Marty Walsh called the court’s decision a major setback to the health and safety of workers and vowed OSHA would use its existing authority to ensure companies protect workers. The American Medical Association, one of the largest medical associations in the country, said it was “deeply disappointed”.

“In the face of an ever-evolving COVID-19 pandemic that poses a grave threat to the health of our nation, the Supreme Court today halted one of the most powerful tools in the fight against further transmission and death from this aggressive virus,” the AMA said said President Gerald Harmon.

In a separate ruling released at the same time on the government’s vaccination rules for healthcare workers, a 5-4 majority sided with the Biden administration.

“We agree with the government that the [Health and Human Services] The secretary’s rule falls within the powers conferred on him by Congress,” said the majority, writing that the rule “fits very well with the language of the statute”.

“Finally, ensuring that providers take steps to avoid transmitting a dangerous virus to their patients is consistent with the fundamental principle of the medical profession: First, do no harm,” says the majority opinion.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, four of the six Conservatives on the nine-seat bench, disagreed.

“I don’t think the federal government is likely to show that Congress authorized the unprecedented move to force over 10,000,000 healthcare workers to be vaccinated under threat of dismissal,” Alito wrote in his dissent.

Biden said in a statement that making vaccinations compulsory for healthcare workers will save the lives of patients, doctors and nurses. “We will enforce it,” the president said of the mandate.

OSHA, which oversees workplace safety for the Department of Labor, granted the business mandate under its emergency powers established by Congress. OSHA can cut short the normal rulemaking process, which can take years, when the Secretary of Labor determines that a new occupational safety standard is needed to protect workers from a serious hazard.

CNBC Policy

Read more about CNBC’s political coverage:

The court’s decision to overturn the business mandate comes as the pandemic rages across the United States and the highly contagious Omicron variant is sparking an unprecedented surge in new infections. The US is reporting an average of 786,000 new infections daily, a pandemic record and a 37% increase from last week, according to CNBC analysis of data from Johns Hopkins University.

Hospital admissions have also reached a pandemic peak, according to federal data dating back to the summer of 2020. According to a seven-day average of Department of Health and Human Services data, 149,000 Americans are in US hospitals with Covid, a 27% increase. last week.

The vaccination or testing rules have faced a number of lawsuits from 27 states involving Republican attorneys general or governors, private companies, religious groups and national business organizations such as the National Retail Federation, the American Trucking Associations and the National Federation of Independent Business.

The NRF issued a statement calling the Supreme Court ruling a “victory” and calling on the Biden administration to “reject this unlawful mandate and instead work with employers, workers and public health professionals on practical ways to increase immunization rates and contain it.” the spread of the virus in 2022.”

The mandates were the most extensive use of power by the federal government to protect workers from Covid since the pandemic began. Taken together, the Biden administration estimated that the rules for businesses and healthcare workers would apply to about 100 million Americans.

But both rules were in flux long before the Supreme Court adopted them. The OSHA rules were blocked by a conservative federal appeals court in November, then Reinstated weeks later by another court.

The White House at the time urged companies to follow public safety requirements even if they were not enforced.

Some companies have done this, others have introduced their own rules. A number of large employers, including Citigroup, Nike and Columbia Sportswear, have announced plans to lay off unvaccinated workers in recent days.

— CNBC’s Christina Wilkie contributed to this report.

Biden administration defends vaccine mandates in Supreme Court docket arguments

A protester holds a banner at a rally against mandates for the vaccines against coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in front of the New York State Capitol in Albany, New York, the United States, Jan. 5, 2022.

Facebook Facebook logo Sign up on Facebook to connect with Mike Segar Reuters

The Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments on Friday on two cases that challenged the Biden government’s Covid vaccination and testing requirements for private companies and healthcare workers.

The arguments, which began at 10 a.m. ET, began with a lawyer for a national small business group arguing against private business regulations that would apply to tens of millions of workers.

National Federation of Independent Business attorney Scott Keller was grilled by the court’s three Liberal justices who sometimes sounded incredulous at the proposal to end workplace health care while Covid cases reached new heights.

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts asked Keller why the Department of Labor was not empowered to regulate the “special job problem” caused by the pandemic.

Roberts is likely an indispensable voice for the rules of the Biden administration in order to survive the Conservative 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court.

A protester holds a sign reading “Freedoms & Mandates Don’t Mix” in front of the US Supreme Court during the dispute over two federal coronavirus vaccine mandate measures in Washington, DC, USA on Friday, January 7, 2022.

Al Drago | Bloomberg | Getty Images

The debate on whether the federal government has the power to enforce the comprehensive public health requirements comes before the Supreme Court when the global pandemic enters its third year.

Challenges to the rules include business associations, Republican-led states, and religious groups. Urgent rulings are expected relatively soon.

For companies with 100 or more employees, the rule of the occupational health and safety administration applies, which stipulates that employees must be vaccinated or tested for Covid on a weekly basis. The Department of Health’s rule would require vaccination for medical personnel in facilities that treat Medicare and Medicaid patients.

The two mandates cover about two-thirds of all US workers – about 100 million Americans, according to the White House.

president Joe Biden issued The mandates in early November, weeks before the first evidence of the highly transmissible Omikron variant, drove infection rates across the country to breathtaking new highs.

Days later, the U.S. 5th District Court of Appeals blocks the mandate from taking effect for companies, with a three-person committee that saw its requirements as “astonishingly broad”.

But another federal appeals court the rule reintroduced in Decemberwho noted that OSHA has had a great deal of leeway in the past to enact safety measures and highlights the danger posed by the pandemic to workers.

Early data suggests that omicron infections are typically less severe than previous iterations of the coronavirus, although vaccination remains an effective protection against hospitalization and death from Covid. Health experts say.

All nine Supreme Court justices have been vaccinated against Covid and all have received a booster. The court heard arguments in favor of much of the pandemic remotely and broadcast the proceedings via livestream for the first time in its history. They returned for a personal battle last October while keeping the building closed to the public and implementation of other pandemic-related security measures.

This is a developing story. Check again for updates.

Federal court docket reinstates Biden administration’s enterprise vaccine mandate

United States President Joe Biden speaks at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, DC, USA on Wednesday, November 3, 2021.

Al Drago | Bloomberg | Getty Images

A federal appeals court reinstated the Biden government’s vaccine and testing requirements for private companies, which include some 80 million American workers.

The Cincinnati 6th Court of Appeal’s ruling overturned a November restraining order that blocked the Labor Protection Agency’s rule that applies to companies with 100 or more employees.

In Friday’s ruling, the court found that OSHA “has demonstrated the pervasive danger that COVID-19 poses to workers – especially those who have not been vaccinated – in their workplaces.

The Justice Department argued last week that blocking the requests would do “enormous” damage to the public as hospitals prepare for an increase in Covid cases this winter and the heavily mutated Omicron variant gaining a foothold in more states.

“COVID-19 is spreading to workplaces and workers are being hospitalized and dying,” the Justice Department argued in a court file on Friday. “As the number of COVID-19 cases continues to rise and a new variant has emerged, the threat to workers is persistent and overwhelming.”

The policy required companies with 100 or more employees to ensure that their employees are fully vaccinated by Jan 4th or have a negative Covid test weekly to enter the workplace. Unvaccinated workers were required to wear masks indoors from December 5th.

Republican attorneys general, private companies, and industry groups such as the National Retail Federation, American Trucking Associations, and the National Federation of Independent Business sued for repeal of the policy. They argued that the requirements are unnecessary, place compliance costs on businesses, and exceed the powers of the federal government.

The Biden administration stopped implementing and enforcing the requirements last month to comply with an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th District in New Orleans. Judge Kurt D. Englehardt said in an opinion for a three-person committee that the requirements were “surprisingly too broad” and raised “serious constitutional concerns”.

The more than two dozen lawsuits filed against the vaccine and testing requirements were transferred to the Sixth Circuit last month after the Biden government launched a cross-district judicial process to randomly consolidate the case in a single court.

The Justice Department argued in its trial last week that the labor protection agency that developed the requirements acted within their emergency powers established by Congress. The Biden government rejected opponents who claimed workers were quitting because of the policy, saying the compliance costs were “modest”.

“The threat to people’s life and health also far outweighs petitioners’ suspicions about the number of workers who may quit instead of getting vaccinated or tested,” the Justice Department wrote on its file, arguing that many workers are who say they will stop completing in the end with vaccination orders.

OSHA, which oversees occupational safety for the Department of Labor, developed the vaccine and testing requirements under emergency powers that allow the agency to shorten the normal rulemaking process, which can take years. OSHA may issue an emergency workplace safety standard if the Secretary of Labor determines that a standard is required to protect workers from serious danger.

The White House has repeatedly argued that Covid poses a serious threat to workers, highlighting the appalling death toll from the pandemic and rising Covid infections in the United States

Reuters contributed to this report.

This breaking news. Please check again for updates.

Is “Assault In Talibani Type” BJP MLA’s Phrases, Supreme Courtroom Asks Tripura

Violence in Tripura: A BJP MLA allegedly urged party workers to attack Trinamool leaders. (File)

New Delhi:

The law-and-order situation in Tripura is worsening in the run-up to the citizen polls despite the orders of the Supreme Court, according to the Trinamool Congress today in court in a petition for alleged disregard of the state government. Citing violence against its political leaders and workers before the elections, the party called on the court to take action against state officials. The court today called on the Tripura government to clarify a speech by a BJP MLA allegedly calling for “Taliani-style” violence against Trinamool leaders.

“Did the MLA make that speech? If so, have measures been taken against him? ”The bench asked DY Chandrachud and Vikram Nath.

On August 18, Tripura BJP MLA Arun Chandra Bhowmik allegedly urged party workers to attack “Talibani-style” Trinamool leaders. The petitioners had brought the question of this speech to court today.

Senior attorney Mahesh Jethmalani stood up for the government and said the MLA had been called for questioning. “I don’t think the speech incited violence. The petitioners make mountains out of molehills, ”he added.

Senior attorney Jaideep Gupta, who represents Trinamool Congress, called the situation “very serious” and said the police were there, “but do nothing”.

“A journalist was beaten up. A first informational report was made against party leader-actor Sayoni Ghosh for using slogans … even though she is a victim – she is charged with attempted murder,” said Mr Gupta, producing some photos for the Court.

“The security situation is so bad that the CPM has even withdrawn its candidacy,” he added.

“We don’t want to get into an argument now. We just want to increase the police presence, “said Judge DY Chandrachud, calling on the state government to consider deploying additional battalions of the central paramilitary force for protection.

Court docket calls necessities ‘fatally flawed’

Protesters hold signs during a protest against Covid-19 mandates in front of the General Motors (GM) Tech Center in Warren, Michigan, the United States, on Wednesday, November 3, 2021.

Mathew Hatcher | Bloomberg | Getty Images

A federal appeals court has appealed to the president Joe Bidens Vaccine and testing requirements for private companies are “fatally flawed” and “amazingly too broad” on the grounds that the requirements are likely beyond the powers of the federal government and raise “serious constitutional concerns”.

The U.S. Fifth District Court of Appeals reiterated its decision to suspend implementation of the requirements in an opinion released Friday evening, yet another sign that they may not stand up to judicial review.

The appeals court, believed to be one of the most conservative in the country, originally suspended the requirements on Nov. 6 for review in response to challenges from the Republican attorneys general of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah, as well as several private companies.

While the court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of the requirements, the three-member panel made it clear that the actions to remove the mandates “are likely to be successful on the matter”. They criticized the requirements as “a universal sledge hammer that hardly tries to account for differences in jobs (and employees)”.

The occupational health and safety agency, which oversees occupational safety for the Department of Labor, developed the requirements as part of the emergency agency established by Congress. This authority enables the agency to shorten the process of issuing safety and health standards in the workplace, which typically takes years.

OSHA can use its emergency powers when the Secretary of Labor determines that a new standard of safety or health is necessary to protect workers from a “serious hazard” from a new hazard. The judges asked Friday whether Covid poses a serious threat to all eligible workers, arguing that OSHA already has tools that it can use without a comprehensive standard of emergency safety.

The Biden administration asked the court on Monday to lift the hiatus, warning that delaying implementation would “likely cost dozens or even hundreds of lives a day” if the virus spreads. White House officials have repeatedly said that Covid is clearly a serious threat to workers, highlighting the appalling death toll from the virus and the high rates of transmission in counties across the United States

In the United States, more than 750,000 people have died from the virus and infected more than 46 million since the pandemic began, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. According to data from Johns Hopkins University, more than 1,000 Americans die from the virus every day and nearly 80,000, on average, become infected every day.

The White House has urged companies to move ahead with implementing the requirements, even as the legal drama unfolds in court. Companies with 100 or more employees have until January 4th to ensure that their employees receive the vaccinations required for a full vaccination. After this date, unvaccinated employees must present negative Covid tests weekly to enter the workplace. Unvaccinated employees must wear masks indoors in the workplace from December 5th.

The Biden government is facing a flurry of lawsuits aimed at overturning mandates. Republican attorneys general in at least 26 states have challenged the requirements in five federal appeals courts. The cases are grouped into a single court by randomly selecting from among the jurisdictions in which lawsuits have been filed. The Justice Department announced earlier this week that the random selection would take place on Tuesday at the earliest.

David Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, told CNBC that there is a “high probability” that the case will end up in the Supreme Court, where there is a conservative majority.

“There are judges in the court who want to curb the administrative state, and this is a case where those concerns are likely to come to the fore,” Vladeck told CNBC on Monday.

Contact 2: Illinois Supreme Court docket ruling might put a refund in owners’ pockets

JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri – Some Missouri senators want the Department of Social Services to block abortion providers from Medicaid funding for unethical behavior.

Following a special summer session to renew the Federal Reimbursement Allowance (FRA), the tax paid by health care providers that fund Missouri’s Medicaid program, Senate Chairs formed a committee to address concerns about the Medicaid funding going to abortion providers to dispel, such as Planned Parenthood.

The Senate Interim Committee on Medicaid Accountability and Taxpayer Protection met for the third time on Thursday since July. The focus of the hearing was on discussing a committee report making changes to the state’s Medicaid system. Senator Bill White, R-Joplin, chairs the committee and has read the six-page report.

“The state has the authority to establish qualification standards for Medicaid providers in Medicaid programs and to take action against providers who do not meet these standards,” White said.

One of the proposals would enable joint investigations against Medicaid providers under the Department of Social Services (DSS) and the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS). This regulatory proposal would have to be approved by the members of the committee and then sent to the department.

“The committee urges the DSS and DHSS to work together on amending and expanding the existing rules to include the DSS’s compliance with all state laws,” said White.

These violations of state law include failure to comply with patient consent, failure to keep medical records, failure to cooperate with DHSS during an examination, failure to ensure adequate facilities and sterilized equipment, and failure to provide the women named with necessary printed matter Materials to make available to an extra-state abortion facility. “

White and other members asked the DSS and DHSS to draft emergency rules and put them into effect as soon as possible. As part of this change, DSS might consider revoking or denying a license based on DHSS reports.

Senator Lauren Arthur, D-Kansas City, is concerned the language may affect more healthcare providers than intended.

“If this is a back door attempt to invalidate Planned Parenthood, I am concerned about the impact it would have on access to health care,” said Arthur. “There doesn’t seem to be a solution for those who would feel this loophole.”

Senator Jill Schupp, D-Creve Couer, told the committee she feared the investigation could create a gap in health care for Missourians.

“I am concerned about what we are pushing forward and trying to move forward quickly, in a process that may withhold the necessary health care from our recipients,” said Schupp.

“I’m not sure how this will benefit the state or the beneficiary. I think this is intended to allow DSS more control without having to conduct its own investigation.”

A proposed legislative change in the report allows the state to deny or revoke Medicaid funding to MO HealthNet providers, such as abortion facilities, which in Missouri are just planned parenting, for unethical behavior.

“That Missouri has an interest in protecting unborn children during pregnancy and in ensuring respect for all human life from conception to natural death,” said White.

This change in the law would require the approval of the General Assembly when members return in January. Arthur said she couldn’t support the language because she feared it could hurt Medicaid funding across the state.

“Until there is assurance that we are complying, I believe we are taking a risk that I am not comfortable with,” said Arthur.

Planned Parenthood is already banned from using Medicaid funds for abortions. Another important part of the proposal means Missouri could force the closure of the Central West End site in St. Louis if an abortion facility like Planned Parenthood in another state fails to comply.

White said members are expected to sign the report in the coming days, with the report being sent to departments early next week.

The committee will meet again on October 4 to hear from MO Healthnet on transparency issues.

Supreme Courtroom to listen to case on Maine tuition program that bars cash for spiritual schooling

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to a case under a student aid program in. to take over Maine which prohibits the use of state funds for religious schools, another fight before the Supreme Court at the intersection of religious freedom and School choice.

The case, Carson v. Makin, comes from a Maine program that provides classes for Maine residents to attend private high schools when their local district doesn’t have a public school. It comes after a recent Supreme Court case ruling that the government cannot prohibit state aid from attending religious schools in a publicly available program.

The previous case, Espinoza v. Montana, was seen as a great victory for religious freedom advocates. But the Maine program contains another language that, if maintained, could effectively castrate Espinoza.

The state says it cannot discriminate against schools based on their status of being affiliated with religious institutions. But she says she can ban money from going to school if she gives her students a certain religious point of view – which many religious schools do.

THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE COMPLETES THE HEARING OF A FLOWER SHOP OWNER WHO HAS BEEN SERVED WITHOUT SERVING GAY WEDDINGS

The First Circuit Court of Appeals called this portion of Maine’s program a “usage-based” distinction.

Since the Maine program is only for people living in areas without public schools, the appeals court said those seeking “publicly funded ‘biblically integrated’ or religiously ‘intertwined’ education do not have ‘equal access’ to the benefits that Maine makes available to everyone else – namely, the free benefits of a public education. ”

The district court also said Maine applies a different standard to schools that prohibits receiving government funding. While in the Espinoza case Montana banned all schools affiliated with religious institutions from receiving government funding – “status” discrimination – Maine bans schools based on “what the school teaches through its curriculum.”

This is consistent with the logic of the Espinoza case, in which the judges made a distinction between funding schools connected to religious institutions and funding the “training of clergy”. A ban on government funding of clergy education was upheld in 2004 in a 2004 Supreme Court case called Locke v Davey.

“[A]”Although Espinoza forbids Maine to exclude schools because they are religious, Maine can still exclude parents from choosing schools that do religious things,” said the Institute for Justice, the group that represents the families that make Maine -Contest politics in a press release summarizing the arguments of the state.

SUPREME COURT PROVIDES ARIZONA VOTER FRAUD PROTECTION

Kirby Thomas West, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, appeared to be ridiculing Maine’s law in a tweet Friday.

“Big news! @IJ has come back to SCOTUS for another important #schoolchoice case, ”she said. “When SCOTUS said this time in Espinoza that states are not allowed to discriminate against religious schools, it means that states are not allowed to discriminate against religious schools. Good afternoon, team!”

The Maine Department of Education has argued that its situation is quite unique in that many students in Maine would not receive a publicly funded education without its student support program. Therefore, the program is not the same as that of Montana, which should fund alternatives to public education.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“The study program is not a ‘voucher’ program or any other vehicle for choosing a school,” the state said in a nutshell.

“The study program is the result of a specific legal provision that sectarian training is not to be equated with public training,” said the state. “The degree program is not designed as an alternative to the Maine public education system, but rather as part of it.”

The case is expected to be heard in late 2021 or early 2022 and should be decided by the end of June 2022.

Ludacris ‘did not know’ he had a tennis court docket | Leisure

Ludacris “didn’t know” that he owned a tennis court.

Hitmaker “Grew Up a Screw Up” admitted that the positive side of the coronavirus pandemic has been spending more time at home and finally enjoying “the fruits of” [his] Work ”and joked that he had found features on the grounds of his residence that he had no idea even existed.

On the ‘Ellen DeGeneres Show’ he said, “I find things in my house and on my property that I didn’t even know were there. I actually have a tennis court, believe it or not. I didn’t even know this was on the property.

“But I’m enjoying it because I can finally relax and enjoy this property that I’ve spent so much money on.”

Recently, video footage of the 43-year-old rapper flying a plane appeared, but he admitted that although he has owned his own plane for some time, he has never worked on getting his pilot’s license because he disliked the idea for several hours abstaining from alcohol before going on vacation.

About the speculation about the acquisition of the pilot’s license, he said: “I am as surprised as everyone else. The internet was going on with the fact that I had an official pilot’s license when I saw the video. I have never said that! But who am I right on the internet. The internet believes what they want to believe.

“But that’s called a ‘nickel trip’, this term goes back to the military era. So this is my first time flying.

“I actually own an airplane, but in all these years I’ve never wanted to be a pilot because you can’t drink alcohol within eight hours of flying. Who would want to go on vacation and not leave drinking in front of them? “

However, Ludacris admitted that he now plans to obtain his license to officially fly an aircraft.

He added, “In a nutshell, this is the first of many, but I plan to get my pilot’s license soon. It is a work in progress, it will take some time. “

Britney Spears ‘will not attend conservatorship listening to in courtroom’ | Leisure

Britney Spears will not attend her Conservatory hearing in person.

The 39-year-old pop star will appear virtually at the June 23 hearing after her attorney previously urged the court to “speed up” Britney in the ongoing battle for her conservatory, according to Us Weekly.

Britney has been unable to make important financial decisions for herself without her father’s approval since her 2008 conservatory contract.

The subject came into the spotlight this year after the February documentary “Framing Britney Spears” which explored the conservatoire battle.

And in March, the “… Baby One More Time” hit maker, who rose to global fame as a teenager, hit social media to talk about the documentary and the speculation that came with it.

She wrote on Instagram: “My life has always been very speculated … observed … and really my whole life was judged !!! For my sanity I have to dance to @iamstevent every night of my life to feel wild and human and alive has been exposed all my life performing in front of people !!!

She later added, “As the world goes on and life goes on, we as humans still remain so fragile and sensitive !! (sic) “

Britney subsequently stated that even though she hadn’t seen the documentary, she felt “embarrassed”.

The pop star said, “I haven’t seen the documentary, but from what I’ve seen I was embarrassed by the light they put me in … I’ve cried for two weeks and well … I still cry sometimes.

“I do what I can with myself in my own spirituality to try to keep my own joy … love … and happiness !!!! Dancing every day brings me joy !!! I am not here to be perfect … perfect is boring … I’m here to pass on friendliness !!!! (sic) “