Open Newswire

The Saratov oil refinery, owned by Rosneft, has halted processing after a Ukrainian drone attack, Reuters reported, citing two sources.

El recuerdo de Qatar 2022 marca un duelo de alta tensión en el fútbol mundial.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Morgan McGarvey of Louisville is urging the city’s investor-owned electric utility to ensure that electricity ratepayers don’t bear the costs of hyperscale data centers, saying he’s opposed to data center construction in the city.  McGarvey in a Thursday letter to John Crockett, the president of Louisville Gas and Electric and Kentucky Utilities, […]

La Corte de Constitucionalidad suspendió provisionalmente el acuerdo que establecía las reglas para consultar al pueblo maya Ixil sobre la hidroeléctrica Palo Viejo. La decisión paraliza el proceso ordenado por la propia Corte para reparar la omisión de la consulta previa. Por Rony Ríos La Corte de Constitucionalidad (CC) suspendió provisionalmente, por mayoría, el Acuerdo ... Read more The post La CC da luz verde a hidroeléctrica Palo Viejo y frena consulta del pueblo Ixil appeared first on Prensa Comunitaria.

Apenas unas horas después de amenazar con romper las relaciones comerciales con España y calificar al país de “aliado horrible”, el presidente de EE UU dio un volantazo al afirmar que este había sido “muy generoso”. ¿De qué pago habla?

کامبک روز بیست و نهم

В рамках саммита в Анкаре президент США Дональд Трамп анонсировал выдачу лицензии Украине на производство американских ракет к ПВО Patriot. Как пишет Bloomberg, это может занять годы. Однако в Киеве называют прогноз "пессимистичным". В Кремле же надеются на возвращение США к мирному треку.

世界杯开赛近一个月后，八支球队将在四分之一决赛中展开最后的角逐，他们将为争夺冠军奖杯展开激烈角逐，力争在7月19日捧起金杯。

District Attorney Sean Teare said he is in contact with prosecutors in Minnesota who are investigating the January shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents.

With the Board of Game’s consent, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game is again killing large numbers of bears and wolves, most of them brown bears, this time to grow the Mulchatna Caribou Herd so its members can again be hunted by people living in the area. Or so the argument goes. While combing […]

PM Marape wants polygyny outlawed by 2030. But does marriage structure actually shape women's voice in the household? New analysis of PNG's DHS data suggests it does — with women in polygynous unions significantly less likely to have a say.DisclosureThis research was undertaken with the support of the ANU-UPNG Partnership, an initiative of the PNG-Australia Partnership, funded by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The views expressed are those of the author only. About the author/sKingtau MambonKingtau Mambon is an economics lecturer at the University of Papua New Guinea. He was awarded an ANU-UPNG Partnership Scholarship and completed a Master of International and Development Economics degree at the ANU Crawford School of Public Policy in 2023.Dorothy KaupaDorothy Kaupa is an economics tutor at the University of Papua New Guinea.

(The Center Square) – Mason County Superior Court Judge David Stevens says the rule of law is under attack by the Washington Supreme Court as he competes for Position 3 on the crowded primary ballot. Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis plans on giving up the seat at the end of her term on Dec. 31. She was first appointed to the bench by former Gov. Jay Inslee before voters elected her to a full term in 2020. The opening comes as five Supreme Court positions appear on the ballot this year and a constitutional challenge to the new state income tax moves through the county courts and toward the nine justices. Stevens will face Washington Court of Appeals Judge Mike Diaz and King County Superior Court Judge Jaime Hawk on the August ballot, but only two of them can advance to the November general election. In an interview with The Center Square, Stevens laid out his background, with service in multiple parts of the world, concerns over various high court rulings, public defender caseload standards, court rules, partisan endorsements and the issues he sees with gubernatorial appointments to the Supreme Court. The following Q&A has been edited for length, clarity and readability. The Center Square: For voters who may not know you, can you walk through your background and why you decided to run for the Washington Supreme Court? Stevens: My parents were working-class people. My dad did 23 years in the Air Force. His family was originally from Cuba; he was born in Puerto Rico, and English was not his first language. After the Air Force, he supervised maids at a Holiday Inn and acted as an interpreter for social services. My mother was a career waitress. When I graduated from high school, nobody in my family or extended family had gone to college, so it really was not an option for me. I joined the U.S. Navy as an enlisted man. After I was honorably discharged, I attended the University of Washington and later UW Law School. After law school, I became a prosecutor. My criminal law professor told me there were two things I needed to do to become good: go to trial and do appeals. She said prosecutors are often deal-making machines and are afraid to go to trial, and that appeals teach you how to preserve legal issues and set a record. I worked as a prosecutor in Spokane for 12 years. People started calling me “No Deal Dave” because I went to trial so often. I’ve done more than 200 trials. I’ve worked as a federal prosecutor in California, worked in Afghanistan for the U.S. Department of State, went to Kosovo as a European prosecutor, and then worked for the Colville Indian Tribe as a chief public defender. I later came to Mason County as a senior felony prosecutor. When a vacancy opened, Gov. Jay Inslee appointed someone to the Superior Court, and I became concerned with rulings I saw in criminal cases, especially on bail. People in the community asked me to run, and I defeated that appointee. I’m running for the Supreme Court because I think the bench is ideologically driven, as six of the nine sitting justices were appointed by governors from one party. I want to be elected by the people. The Center Square: Can you explain your judicial philosophy in plain English? What do you mean when you describe yourself as a strict constructionist? Stevens: You look at the law. You do not look behind the law unless there is ambiguity. You do not substitute your judgment for what the Legislature passed or what the people passed through an initiative. I would call myself a textualist and originalist. You look at the text itself, what it meant at the time, and the traditions and customs that existed then. The contrast is legal pragmatism, which one of my opponents has specifically identified as his philosophy. That approach looks at outcomes, intent and the real-world effects of a ruling. The problem is that it allows judges to think they are wiser than everyone else. It lets them decide what outcome they want and then work backward. If a law is unconstitutional and it has terrible consequences, the answer is to amend the Constitution. You do not reinterpret it. It is not a living Constitution. The people who pass laws expect those laws to be followed, not for judges to say that technology has changed or morals have changed, and therefore that the law means something else. That is not our job. That is the job of policymakers. The Center Square: Where do you draw the line between interpreting the state Constitution and rewriting it from the bench? Stevens: You look at precedent and how the Constitution has been interpreted in the past. The vast majority of our state Constitution has been in effect for more than 100 years. You do not overturn precedent unless it is clearly wrong. I am conservative in that sense. I would not overturn precedent unless it is clearly, clearly wrong. The longer a precedent has been in effect, the more force it has. A good example at the national level is Plessy v. Ferguson, where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld “separate but equal.” That survived for more than 60 years, even though it was clearly a violation of the 14th Amendment. It took until Brown v. Board of Education to correct that. So you have to be careful. But you also cannot use precedent as an excuse to make policy from the bench. Judges should interpret and apply the law, not rewrite it because they prefer a different result. The Center Square: Are there situations where you may personally disagree with a law or an outcome but still have to uphold it? Stevens: All the time. It is not about whether I personally agree with the law. My job is to apply it. I have to treat everyone the same. We are not policy makers. Sometimes I get a case in front of me and think, "Why is this being prosecuted?" It may seem minor to me, but that’s not my job. If it is within the law, if the facts are there and there is probable cause, I do not get to second-guess it because I do not like the case or do not think it is a big issue. My job is to decide the facts and apply the law. That is all I do, regardless of whether I agree with the law. The Center Square: You mentioned the Quinn ruling, where the Supreme Court upheld the capital gains tax as an excise tax rather than an income tax. Without asking how you would rule on any future tax case, what did you take away from Quinn? Stevens: Read the dissent. The dissent clearly spells out where the majority got it wrong. I agree with the dissent, but I have no idea how I would rule on the current controversy involving the new income tax. I have not seen the briefing. I cannot prejudge that. Quinn is an example of the problem. The majority was looking at outcomes. My opponents talk about legal pragmatism and caring about outcomes. I don't think that is a judge’s job. The Center Square: The Blake decision struck down Washington’s felony drug possession law and had major public-safety and taxpayer impacts. What did you take away from that ruling? Stevens: We are not supposed to look at outcomes when deciding cases. I make rulings all the time that I don’t like the outcome of. If I have a civil case where one side is the state or a company with vast resources, and the other side is a family that will face a huge financial impact if they lose, I may be sympathetic to the family. My natural tendency is to root for the underdog, but that cannot come into consideration. Blake is different because it shows what happens when judges become policymakers. The drug possession statute had been upheld twice by the Supreme Court. It had been in effect for generations. Then, in 2021, the court decided on its own, based on arguments not even raised by the attorneys, that the law was unconstitutional and had always been unconstitutional. That meant refunds. It meant plea agreements had to be redone. It affected offender scores. It affected possession-with-intent cases where prosecutors had resolved cases through simple possession pleas. It had massive consequences. The court came up with its own arguments. You do not do that. I understand the preference for a mens rea element. The law generally does not favor strict-liability felonies, but once the Supreme Court had already upheld the statute, that issue had been decided. If the law needed to be changed, the Legislature should have done that. I do not come up with my own arguments when deciding a controversy. I look at the law and the rules of evidence, I apply them fairly, and if the outcome is something I do not like, I still have to follow the law. You can see the court’s ideology in many of its decisions. Sometimes there are unanimous rulings, but then concurrences say the court should have gone further because the case affects a favored group. They need to get out of that. They need to apply the law. The Center Square: You have also criticized court rules and public defender caseload standards created by the bench. What are the policymaking decisions there, and should that have been left to the Legislature? Stevens: The Supreme Court has always had the ability to discipline attorneys who are not doing competent work. If a public defender is taking on too many cases and just pleading everyone out, the court can take action against that attorney under the rules of professional conduct. But the court felt that public defenders were overworked and that their caseloads were causing cases to settle to the defendants' disadvantage. They took studies from groups that had an ideological outlook and imposed numerical standards. At one point, the standard caseload was around 147 felony cases. Now it’s being lowered to 47. There are literally not enough attorneys who practice criminal law, including prosecutors, to make that work. In Mason County, we are budgeted for three public defenders. To comply with the new rule, we would have to go to eight or nine. That is going to wreck the budget. This is clearly policy. The court even said it expects full implementation over 10 years and that counties can phase it in by 10% each year. That sounds like something the Legislature would do. The Center Square: Some candidates say public defense caseloads are crushing and argue that indigent defendants are not getting proper representation. Do you disagree? Stevens: Being a public defender is hard. I have been a prosecutor and a public defender, and prosecutors may not agree with me, but it's harder to be a public defender. Law enforcement has already done much of the investigation for prosecutors. Public defenders come in after evidence has been collected, and they often work with people who are not at their best and may have mental health or drug issues. It's always been a tough job. Public defenders should be funded, and counties can be sued if they fail to provide adequate funding, but mandating a policy from the bench without dealing with the effects is not the right way to go. We are already seeing cases dismissed because there are not enough public defenders, and that will have a huge impact on county budgets. The Center Square: The Supreme Court races are officially nonpartisan, but endorsements and donations often send political signals. Your opponents have touted support from the Democratic establishment; how should voters consider those signals, while keeping in mind that you received a recommendation from the Washington State Republican Party? Stevens: Obviously, my opponents want them to consider that. If you read their pamphlet statements, both of my opponents specifically put “Democrat” organizations in there. They want voters to know Democrats have endorsed them. You read my pamphlet statement, and you do not see anything like that. I have been endorsed by prosecutors, public defenders, private attorneys and firearms groups because I believe in the Second Amendment, but judicial races should be nonpartisan. They were not always nonpartisan in Washington. The idea was to take partisanship out of judicial races, but is it really out of it when candidates put in their pamphlet statements that they are endorsed by Democratic organizations? They may say they want nonpartisan judicial races, but their actions show something else. The Center Square: Do you think Washington already has a partisan judiciary? Stevens: Yes. The governor’s office has been held by one party for 41 years, and the governor appoints judges. Those appointees will say they were not asked how they would rule in cases, but if you look at the application process, it can ferret out what people believe. They ask what you have done for minorities and look at specialty bar associations and minority bar associations. The problem is that my opponents say the rule of law has never been under such attack. I agree that judicial integrity is at stake, but in Washington, the attack on the rule of law is coming from the Supreme Court, not the Legislature, because it has become policy-driven. The same party has been appointing judges for decades, and that has led to systemic changes in the judiciary. The Center Square: You have also criticized the way vacancies are filled. What is the issue there? Stevens: When Washington’s Constitution was written, judges were specifically required to be elected. The Constitution allows the governor to appoint someone when a vacancy arises, but a tradition has developed where a judge is appointed and then, before the term is over, retires so the governor can appoint a successor. That has subverted the state Constitution. If a Republican governor had been appointing judges for 40 years, people would see that as a problem. The same thing has happened here, just in reverse. The Center Square: For voters comparing you to Diaz and Hawk, what is the clearest difference between the three of you? Stevens: The question is whether voters want someone who will treat everyone the same regardless of race, ethnicity or religion. My career has shown that I will. Do you want someone who will apply the law as written according to precedent, or do you want someone who has specifically said he is a legal pragmatist and will weigh the outcome of his decisions? Do you want someone who will decide based on the outcome they want, or someone who will follow the law? That is what this race comes down to. This could be a turning point in our state.

Trolls: Save the Humans brings these gentle, massive conservationists to The Wild Center through Halloween

You've got events sure to lure not just whiskey and brewery enthusiasts, but Emo and Northern Soul lovers in your life.

The largest gains came from corporate income taxes and use taxes. Sales tax collections, the largest source of state revenue, were down by $11.91 million or 0.42% year over year.

A man with a “large hunting knife” approached the Little Rock home of Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Hallie Shoffner on July 3, according to a police report filed Monday. The individual left the premises at the urging of Shoffner’s husband, Michael Sullivan, according to both the Little Rock Police incident report and a Wednesday statement […]

Gov. Patrick Morrisey this week appointed an Ohio County-based business owner to fill the state House of Delegates seat vacated earlier this year by current Supreme Court Justice Bill Flanigan, according to a news release. Shane Thomas Stack, of Triadelphia, is the owner of a pawn and gun shop in Wheeling, as well as Frio […]

DOJ accused Yale of continuing to consider race in med school admissions after the practice was ruled illegal in a 2023 SCOTUS case.

几位来自不同国家的议员星期四(7月9日)在台湾政府安排下，登上海巡署舰艇到金门对经常被中国船只侵扰的周边水域做第一线观察。此举被视为是台湾为争取国际关注、应对中国频繁以其海警在当地水域巡逻试图加大对台湾施压的努力之一。

A foundation coordinating with local partners says the opioid crisis isn't over, and a new Minnesota grant is an example of the urgency felt in preventing youth tragedies.