Open Newswire

Australiako esperientziak zein datu utzi ditu benetan? Zergatik ezin da horrela egin Europan eta zein izango da gurean erabiliko den mekanismoa? Eraginkorra izango al da? "Mito bat amaitzeko balio izan du: multinazional teknologikoei ezin zaiela mugarik jarri eta gobernuek ezin dutela ezer egin", kontatu dio ARGIAri Telmo Lazkano osasun digitalaren arloko aholkulariak.

Bassirou Diomaye Faye était en Allemagne pour une visite de 48 heures, qui a pris fin ce mardi 23 juin 2026. Il s’agissait de la première visite d’un responsable africain depuis l’arrivée au pouvoir de Friedrich Merz. Le président sénégalais a rencontré le chancelier et le président de la République Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Il a également participé à un forum économique, alors que Dakar cherche à attirer des investisseurs étrangers, notamment du secteur privé.

Times of San Diego ofrecerá previas de los partidos de Estados Unidos y México durante el Mundial. Para más información, consulte nuestra guía del Mundial 2026 sobre reuniones para ver los partidos. México Con el Tri ya clasificado como líder del Grupo A tras su victoria por 1-0 sobre Corea del Sur, el entrenador Javier […]

Em 2026, Belchior completaria 80 anos. Por conta disso, Marisa Orth, Bur e Taciana Barros se unem para homenagear o artista na turnê “Amar e mudar as coisas – Belchior 80”, que começa nesta terça-feira (23) e vai até o próximo domingo (28), na Caixa Cultural, em Brasília (DF). As artistas foram as convidadas do […] Fonte

A Escócia está pronta para enfrentar o Brasil nesta quarta-feira (24), em jogo válido pela terceira e última rodada do Grupo C da Copa. Apesar do amplo retrospecto favorável à seleção brasileira, os escoceses querem surpreender e quebrar o jejum de nunca terem avançado da fase de grupos no Mundial.

City Council members approved the $5.95 million purchase of 1.38 acres for the new downtown library.

Data centers use water to cool their massive arrays of computer servers. A state agency sent out a survey to figure out how much, but less than a third of the companies responded.

(The Center Square) – Appellate attorney Greg Miller is entering a crowded primary this August, as he and three other candidates eye a spot on the Washington Supreme Court, as a lawsuit challenging the state’s new income tax works its way towards the bench with five of nine seats on the ballot this year. Miller is running for Position 5 against Justice Theo Angelis, whom Gov. Bob Ferguson appointed earlier this year, retired Federal Way Municipal Court Judge Dave Larson and Thurston County Superior Court Judge Sharonda Amamilo. Miller and Angelis have both donated to Ferguson’s campaigns in the past. Only the two candidates who receive the most votes in August will advance to the November election. In an interview with The Center Square, Miller explained his appellate background, judicial philosophy and independence, the governor’s power to replace retiring justices with appointees, where he draws the line on recusal questions, and how voters should assess candidates in a crowded August primary. The following Q&A has been edited for length, clarity and readability. The Center Square: For voters just starting to pay attention, why are you running, and what do you believe you bring to this race? Miller: I have been practicing since 1984. I first began as a law clerk in Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals, and that is where I got the appellate bug. At the Court of Appeals, we saw everything: family law, criminal law, civil cases and procedure. That gave me a very good grounding. I also served as a judge pro tem in Seattle Municipal Court, which meant I handled everything from arraignments to jury and bench trials, impaneling juries, sentencing the defendant if there was a conviction, and everything that goes along with a trial. I later developed an appellate practice and became active in the King County Bar Association. I served as chair of the Judicial Evaluation Committee, which surveyed lawyers and provided the public with information about judges they may or may not want to retain. It also provided feedback to judges themselves. I was one of the founding members of the Washington Appellate Lawyers Association and helped form the King County Bar Association Appellate Practice Section, designed to help newer lawyers learn the appellate practice, find people they could work with, and increase interaction with the appellate bench. At this point, I have handled about 135 state-court appeals in one fashion or another. Some involved filing amicus briefs in the Supreme Court, and some were full merits cases. I have been in every Washington appeals court and have been before the Supreme Court quite a bit. I decided to run after being asked to help evaluate some potential candidates. I looked at the other candidates and did not see meaningful state appellate experience. The state Supreme Court is responsible for state common law, statutes, court rules for all levels of court and attorney discipline. I didn’t think it made sense that the governor would appoint someone without that kind of state appellate background. The Center Square: For voters paying attention because of the income tax issue, how would you describe your judicial philosophy in plain English? Miller: You take the case as it presents. You have to take cases one by one. Especially in appellate courts and trial courts, you are supposed to be judicious. You are supposed to take your time and do it right. You are not supposed to jump to conclusions or have a conclusion before you get to the bench. Any litigant wants to know they have a chance to convince you. If you are my judge, I want a chance to convince you that my case is valid and that you should rule in my favor. I want to feel like you are going to look at that fairly. My philosophy is to look at the cases and put them into context. I am a historian by training, so I look at how a case came up, what the statutes are, where they came from, what they mean, how they apply and how they do not apply. Everyone wants to find some way to put candidates in one category or another. I am trying to do what everyone tells me is impossible, which is to play it straight and down the middle. I am not beholden to anybody. I do not have big money behind me. I will be as fair as I possibly can to everybody. I am independent. I am not in anyone’s pocket. The Center Square: You have raised concerns about gubernatorial appointments to the judiciary. What concerns you about that process? Miller: We have a three-part system of government. We have the executive, the legislative and the judicial. They are supposed to be independent. If you have basically unfettered and unmonitored appointment of the judiciary by the governor, then you are not going to have a truly independent judicial branch. That is one of the points I am raising in this race. You need people who understand the courts from the inside out, and you need an independent judicial branch. My understanding from earlier in my career was that governors’ legal counsel had tried to keep judicial appointments out of the political process and use something closer to a merit-selection process. To the extent that is not happening now, that would be a change. I do not know all of the circumstances of the recent appointments of Angelis or Justice Colleen Melody. The Center Square: Justice Angelis has faced questions because Gov. Bob Ferguson appointed him, Ferguson signed the income tax, and Sen. Jamie Pedersen sponsored it and endorsed Angelis. Angelis has also donated to both of their campaigns. Should voters weigh those relationships when evaluating candidates? Miller: I think that information should be in front of voters. As a candidate, everything is fair game. I had to prepare a resume for the Seattle Times, and I went back and included everything, including bar association work, legal work and even soccer coaching. That is one of the reasons we may not get as many highly qualified people to run, because of the scrutiny. It's an open book, and the press is not easy, and I'm not saying you should be, but that’s how it is. If there is a confluence of facts like that, then voters should have the information and draw their own conclusions. This race is being supercharged by the tax issue, but taxes are not the only thing the Supreme Court will deal with. The court will also decide cases involving employment, wrongful discharge and all kinds of other issues where experience matters. The Center Square: With the income-tax issue front and center, do you think campaign contributions to the governor who signed the tax, or to the senator who sponsored it, could be grounds for recusal if a related case reaches the court? Miller: That is a very interesting question. It might depend on the timing of the donations and the timing of the tax proposal. Anyone could make the claim. I have not thought about that one in great detail, but it is a very interesting question. The Center Square: Justice Angelis has already rescued himself in a case involving his former employer. What would the line for recusal be in your own case if your current or former law firm had a case before the Supreme Court? Miller: If I had anything to do with a case, of course, I would recuse. I am also a part owner of my firm, and we have a robust appellate practice, so if a case involving my firm came before the court, that is something I would seek guidance on. It depends on how far removed you are. Sometimes recusals are based on the law firm. Sometimes they are based on which lawyers and clients are involved. It does not necessarily depend on the firm alone. One default, if you want to be extra careful, is to recuse from any case the firm is in. You always disclose, and then parties may make requests. If I had a financial incentive, that would be grounds for recusal. Otherwise, it would be case-by-case. I have not thought through every detail, and it may be that after thinking about it, I would decide to recuse from any case involving Carney Badley Spellman. The Center Square: Many candidates have emphasized judicial independence. Others have said the state Supreme Court is already partisan or result-oriented. What is your view? Miller: There has been talk through the years that the Supreme Court can be too result-oriented. That was some of the chatter when I was a law clerk at the Court of Appeals, and there is probably always going to be some of that. I am not going to try to make a judgment on the current court because I might be sitting with those justices. If I am trying to convince colleagues to come around to my position and explain why it is a principled decision, I am not going to be able to do that as well if I have already said they are result-oriented or do not care about what the law is. Every justice on the court swore an oath as an attorney and as a judge. I think they all want to do their best. Most lawyers who end up doing this kind of work and working in the court are somewhat idealistic. They want to do the right thing. There are lots of different ways people can talk themselves into doing what is the right thing. The Center Square: Having litigated before the Supreme Court, do you think parties have a fair chance to argue their case, regardless of which side they are on? Miller: I have always felt that I did. Some of my clients and colleagues have not. I had one case that involved a tax issue. We thought we had a good issue. It was taken on direct discretionary review, and we lost 9-0. Sometimes that happens. After that, tax lawyers went to the Legislature and got that decision overruled unanimously by the Legislature. All the Republicans and Democrats supported it. There needs to be differences and distinctions between the three branches of government. That is how the system works. Sometimes it is messy, but it is the best thing we have. The Center Square: Outside of the income tax and judicial independence, how should voters assess candidates for the Supreme Court? Miller: Voters have to remember what the Supreme Court does. It decides cases that are already appeals, with a few exceptions. It decides statewide issues. It decides and clarifies common law. It sets some of the rules. It sees everything eventually. You want somebody who has experience in practice doing a lot of those things. Otherwise, that person is learning on the job. Everyone learns something on the job, but you want to start from a strong foundation. I think I have a strong foundation in almost every area of the law. One thing I do not think is reflected in the current Supreme Court is people with a background in family law: divorce, separation, child custody, domestic violence protection orders and the issues that go along with that. I have litigated those cases. You want somebody who is not just esoteric and up in the sky. You want someone practical who also has the horsepower to address the tougher issues. You want somebody who is willing to listen, has experience and can relate to everyday people. The Center Square: What question do you want voters to ask themselves heading into August? Miller: Who do I feel comfortable deciding my cases? Are you comfortable with them applying the Constitution? Who is going to be fair, unbiased and not beholden to anyone? Those are the questions I think voters should ask.

世界貿易組織（WTO）周二宣布，將審查中國針對印度提出的一項投訴，這一投訴涉及印度在光伏產品和信息技術產品領域所採取的某些措施。

世界贸易组织（WTO）周二宣布，将审查中国针对印度提出的一项投诉，这一投诉涉及印度在光伏产品和信息技术产品领域所采取的某些措施。

The proposed 'Pangaea' development would bring world-class tennis facility to the Chula Vista Bayfront, anchored by a yet to be named elite professional tennis player.

La empresa Transportadora de Energía de Centroamérica (TRECSA) acompañada de la Policía Nacional Civil (PNC) y el Ministerio Público (MP) ha irrumpido en tierras comunales para la instalación de unas bases de torres de transmisión sin consulta previa de la comunidad, acción que se ha denunciado desde hace varios meses. Ahora las autoridades ancestrales de ... Read more The post Comunidad de El Pilar 1 de San Juan Sacatepéquez sigue en su lucha por intromisión de TRECSA appeared first on Prensa Comunitaria.

Marilyn Lenore Nichols passed away in the early hours of May 28, 2026. She was born to Marybelle Whitehead Oian and Captain Edwin Oian in 1935, in Coronado, California. She was the first of two children; her sister, Karen, was born eight years later, in 1943. As Marilyn’s father was in the Air Force, she […] The post Obituary: Marilyn Lenore Nichols appeared first on Santa Barbara News-Press.

法國《世界報》周二指出，當前國際海洋秩序正在發生深刻的變化。2026年6月17日，美國與伊朗簽署的結束戰爭的諒解備忘錄，是美國海上霸權衰落的象徵。全球航行自由這一傳統國際規則正在隨之被削弱，世界海洋正走向碎片化與軍事化。

法国《世界报》周二指出，当前国际海洋秩序正在发生深刻的变化。2026年6月17日，美国与伊朗签署的结束战争的谅解备忘录，是美国海上霸权衰落的象征。全球航行自由这一传统国际规则正在随之被削弱，世界海洋正走向碎片化与军事化。

Consumer advocates, environmental groups warn ratepayers could face decades of costs as lawmakers back long-term power strategy

(The Center Square) – Alan Wilson, son of a congressman and four-term attorney general, on Tuesday won a place on the Republican ticket for South Carolina governor ahead of a candidate endorsed by Donald Trump. Less than 10% of the vote in the primary election runoff was in about 25 minutes after polls closed when the race was called with Wilson leading Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette by 31%. Evette had led a five-candidate field two weeks ago carrying the nod of the second-term Republican president. No decisions were in at time of publication for the Republicans’ runoffs for attorney general or in the 1st Congressional District, or in the Democrats’ runoffs for the 1st Congressional District and the 2nd Congressional District. Wilson is the son of 13-term U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson. Two weeks ago, Evette (28.9%) and Wilson (26.2%) gained more than half of the nearly 465,000 votes cast ahead of U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman (17.1%), coastal businessman and political outsider Rom Reddy (14.2%) and U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (12.1%). State Rep. Jermaine Johsnon won the Democrats’ gubernatorial primary.

Alaska’s short summers demand fast, resilient pollinators — and few species meet that challenge as well as our native bumblebees. These insects are active in cold, windy, and unpredictable weather that keeps most other pollinators grounded. Their ability to generate heat, forage in low temperatures and fly long distances makes them essential to the health […]

El expresidente considera que existe una “responsabilidad política evidente” del actual jefe del Gobierno que debe asumirse con una convocatoria electoral o una cuestión de confianza, y pide a Zapatero que devuelva las joyas “cuanto antes”.

(The Center Square) – Thurston County Superior Court Judge Sharonda Amamilo is competing against three candidates this August for a seat on the Washington Supreme Court as litigation over the state’s new income tax works its way to the justices, and five of the bench’s nine seats appear on the ballot. Amamilo is running for Position 5 against Justice Theo Angelis, whom Gov. Bob Ferguson appointed this year. She is also up against retired Federal Way Municipal Court Judge Dave Larson and appellate attorney Greg Miller. Angelis and Miller have both donated to Ferguson’s campaigns over the years. Only the two candidates who receive the most votes in August will advance to the November election. In an interview with The Center Square, Amamilo explained her judicial philosophy, the importance of precedent, the Blake decision, proposed court rules around bail and warrants, public defense caseload standards, endorsements, Angelis’ appointment and how voters should assess candidates this August. The following Q&A has been edited for length, clarity and readability. The Center Square: For voters just starting to pay attention, why are you running, and what do you believe you bring to this race? Amamilo: My work has been centered around systems and service to the nation, the state and the community. I came to Washington through the military after serving on active duty, including a deployment to Saudi Arabia in support of Operation Desert Storm. That experience taught me that when you sacrifice or show up to serve, you are doing something outside of yourself. My path to law school came from trying to advocate for my own children in public schools. I felt I did not have enough information to protect and advocate for them when the stakes got higher, so I went to law school at night. Once I got there, I realized I could help many other people beyond my own family. I later represented people in child welfare, family law, juvenile justice and public defense, and I saw where the gaps were in the justice system and where people felt the most pressure when they had to engage with it. I have also served on statewide bodies, including the Sentencing Guidelines Commission, the Department of Children, Youth and Families Oversight Board and a jail standards task force. I have worked on anti-trafficking issues and spent years looking at how decisions affect children, families, veterans, people in custody and local court systems. That is what I bring to the Supreme Court: a systems view of how decisions affect people on the ground, informed by military service, education, labor, public defense, child welfare, juvenile justice and now six years as a Superior Court judge. The Center Square: Some voters are paying attention because of the state’s new income tax and the possibility of constitutional tax litigation. How would you describe your judicial philosophy without saying how you would rule on any future case? Amamilo: My judicial philosophy starts with the facts. I am in trial every week. By the time a case is ready for trial, I don’t know what the body of evidence is going to be at the end of that trial, so it’s very important to establish a clear, clean, issue-focused fact pattern that becomes the body of evidence and the record that goes up to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. The next part is making sure the issues match what is available under the law. People like to argue a lot of different things, but not everything is available under the law as it currently stands. Then, when you establish this fact pattern and these issues, you consider what rules and remedies are available. You have to draw a clear nexus between those things. Words matter. Some statutes say “shall.” Some say “must.” Some say there is discretion. Some identify specific exceptions. You have to pay attention to the language and the rules of statutory interpretation. Ultimately, my judicial philosophy is pragmatic. Some have described it as Hamiltonian because I like clarity. I like clarity a lot. The Center Square: In Quinn, the court upheld Washington’s capital gains tax as an excise tax, while the dissent said it was an income tax. What should voters know about how you would approach precedent, constitutional text and separation of powers if a related case reaches the court? Amamilo: Precedent is very important. That is where we look to find consistency in the law. That is how we trust the law and protect the rule of law. We should not stray from the precedent that has helped create stability, allowing people to know what to expect and plan for their future. It should take a very high bar to address precedent. People are concerned that addressing precedent creates a slippery slope, and that is a valid point. Every time a precedent is raised, it creates anxiety. But there is a framework for addressing precedent if the fact pattern is brought to the court. The Supreme Court doesn’t have a developed fact pattern right now regarding how the millionaire’s tax will be promoted or challenged. There has to be a record developed at the trial-court level. If it comes before the Supreme Court, the court will look at whether what is being asked to change has been harmful, whether it has had unintended consequences, or whether it was outright wrong. That is a very high bar. I take that very seriously. In constitutional text, words matter. We talk about what the founders intended, but we could not have gone from the horse and buggy to the electric car if we said the founders only thought in terms of horse and buggies. They were thinking in terms of transportation. On the separation of powers, the people have power. The Legislature has power. The executive branch has power. The courts have power. But all of those branches are bounded. Wherever you stand, you need to know the limits of your role. The Center Square: You brought up the Blake decision and its effect on local courts. What should voters understand about how Supreme Court rulings affect trial courts and local governments? Amamilo: When the Blake decision was decided, and resentencing had to happen, that was monumental and impactful, from city courts to district courts to superior courts. In Thurston County, our judges came together with other stakeholders — the clerk’s office, prosecutors, defense attorneys, pretrial services, corrections and the sheriff’s office — because some people had to be brought back from prisons and jails. The Supreme Court made a decision, and we had an obligation to effectuate that. It was not easy, but it was work that needed to be done. Had someone like me been on the court, I would have been able to provide information about how that decision would be received once it reached the trial court. We knew we needed to phase it in. We needed to prioritize people who should be released from custody immediately, then address fee and cost refunds, then address people whose time in custody needed to be modified or reduced. The decision did not include directions for trial courts on how to do it. Funding is a separate issue, but the impact on courts and how to prioritize implementation is something within the Supreme Court’s wheelhouse. The Center Square: Would you have aligned with the majority or dissent in Blake? Amamilo: I likely would have aligned with the majority. When someone is facing a loss of liberty, should you not be required to have an intentional element of breaking the law? The issue was whether the state had to prove knowledge as part of the offense. If the state does not have to prove that critical element, and the full weight of the law can come down on someone, that is significant. I have seen people lose jobs, lose housing and lose foundational stability while they are going through court. That perspective matters when you are talking about the loss of liberty. The Center Square: Public defense caseload standards are an example of Supreme Court rulemaking with major local budget implications. Given your public defense background, has the court paired those standards with enough attention to funding, recruitment and county capacity? Amamilo: From a policy perspective, the Supreme Court likely was not considering the funding implications, primarily because local funders and policymakers have their own priorities and information. That is a separation-of-powers question involving executive and legislative decisions. But there is support for looking at whether we should have a statewide system, so costs don’t fall unevenly on counties with very limited tax bases. Think about rural counties that are land-rich but have low property values. The funding required for them creates tension between what is necessary for their community and the need to meet the new public defender caseload standards. I was at the Thurston County Public Defender’s Office during the economic crisis in 2009, when we had to make tremendous cuts countywide. Commissioners had to make decisions that affected the public defender’s office, and we were very concerned about the impact on our clients. I was part of caseload standard reductions in parent representation and youth representation, and it made a difference in the ability to represent clients with rigor and readiness. That is tied to the right to have access to competent counsel once someone is eligible for appointed counsel at public expense. It is going to be a balancing act. Maybe we need a different funding model, but that would be a legislative or executive branch decision. The Center Square: Justice Angelis has faced questions because Gov. Bob Ferguson appointed him, Ferguson signed the income tax, and Sen. Jamie Pedersen sponsored it and endorsed Angelis. Angelis has also donated to both of their campaigns. Should voters weigh appointment, endorsement and donor relationships when evaluating judicial independence? Amamilo: I think voters should look at the body of work. Clearly, the more well-connected you are, the more backing your campaign appears to have as a stamp of approval. Dollars do matter. I am not naive to that. But in this role, I believe it is more important that people look at the body of work a candidate brings to the court to inform the court's decisions. I have been working broadly across the legal system and the areas the Supreme Court engages with to have an impact on all Washingtonians. I have served as an appellate body for state agency matters that come through Thurston County Superior Court. I have been a trial judge. I have worked in public defense, child welfare, juvenile justice and other systems that affect people every day. Voters can decide whether a single issue is most important or whether they want someone with a background likely to touch them, their neighbor, their barber, their grocer or the farmer down the road. The Center Square: Some voters may see your endorsements from groups that supported the income tax and question whether that should influence their vote. How do you respond? Amamilo: I think early partisan endorsements can silo a race and suppress dialogue. When the Washington State Republican Party came out early in support of Judge Larson, I thought it sent a message to other conservative groups before they had a chance to get to know the candidates. I have reached out to groups across the spectrum. The Spokane County Republicans, for example, were accommodating when I asked to attend a general meeting and introduce myself after I was unable to attend the party’s candidate forum. I wish more conservative groups would be open to that. Regardless of where we diverge ideologically, that is not the role I am seeking. I am seeking a Supreme Court role where any ideology I may have must stop at the door. We can say impartiality and diversity of thought, but the bottom line is that we all have experiences. We have to be able to filter out the parts of our experiences that do not belong in the decision-making process. I am very adept at doing that. The Center Square: What message do you want to leave with voters heading into the August primary? Amamilo: Other than the body of work, I want voters to think about what they care about from all perspectives of their lives. My favorite word is “sonder.” It means I am acutely aware that every person I encounter, every person who walks into the courtroom, and every person sitting across the table in a multidisciplinary work group has a complex life and a complex history that I know little about. I want voters to think about what is important to them and what the court should be doing in all aspects that might affect their lives. If they look at my background, I submit that they will see a body of work that is highly capable of helping the Supreme Court render decisions that give people clarity — whether it is a child custody issue, driver’s license issue, property dispute, business license issue or employment discrimination case.