Open Newswire

日本媒體19日報導，中國國營旅行社已恢復推出日本團體旅遊產品。不過，新加坡《聯合早報》發現，隸屬國營的“中旅旅行”官網同日緊急下架相關產品。

Antofagasta deberá viajar a Mejillones para enfrentar a La Serena por la Copa Chile. El cuadro albiceleste se encuentra puntero del Grupo C luego de una victoria y un empate frente a Cobreloa. El encuentro se realizará este domingo 21 de junio desde las 12:30 horas en el estadio Municipal mejillonino. Cabe destacar que este […] Este artículo Antofagasta enfrentará a La Serena en Mejillones por la Copa Chile 2026 fue publicado originalmente en El Diario de Antofagasta.

If Turkey draws or loses tonight, the Americans will be guaranteed to win their group.

COLUMBIA — President Donald Trump made a dual endorsement Friday in the race to be South Carolina’s next governor, saying voters can’t go wrong with either Republican in the runoff. Trump’s additional backing of Attorney General Alan Wilson comes just four days before voters pick the GOP nominee. It’s a score for Wilson, three weeks […]

美國和以色列對伊朗發動戰爭三個月後，台灣的一切似乎和平常沒有兩樣。不過，霍爾木茲海峽危機還是暴露了台灣能源供應的脆弱性：台灣幾乎所有天然氣、石油和煤炭都依賴進口。儘管台灣政府原本決定在2025年全面廢核，但如今為了滿足高能耗的半導體產業的能源需求，正考慮重新發展核能。

The Pop Up for Peace event at 4707 Kentfield Road brought together free food, groceries, children’s activities and community resources as organizers used Juneteenth to also highlight Gun Violence Awareness Month. Stockton peace event connects Juneteenth with gun violence prevention is a story from Stocktonia News, a rigorous and factual newsroom covering Greater Stockton, California. Please consider making a charitable contribution to support our journalism.

"སྐུའི་འཕྲོད་བཞེས་གནས་བབ་ཀྱི་ཐོག་ནས་ལ་དྭཊ་སུ་ཆིབས་སྒྱུར་གནང་གི་ཡོད་སྟབས་བོད་ཀྱི་ས་མཐོར་ཆིབས་སྒྱུར་གནང་ཐུབ་ཀྱི་ཡོད།"

Après un match nul prometteur obtenu contre le Brésil (1-1), les Lions de l’Atlas voulaient confirmer leur solidité et décrocher une première victoire face à leurs supporters venus en nombre à Foxborough. Ils se sont imposés grâce à Ismael Saibari (1-0).

Израиль мен "Хезболла" жұма күні өзара атысты тоқтатуға келісті. Келісімнің күші 19 маусым жергілікті уақыт бойынша сағат 16:00-де күшіне енді. Бұл жөнінде Американың жоғары лауазымды шенеунігі хабарлады. Ираншыл "Хезболла" ұйымы АҚШ пен Израильде "террористік ұйым" деп танылған. ЕО аумағында "Хезболланың" әскери қанаты террористік деп танылған. Reuters-тің дерегінше, тараптардың келісімге келуіне АҚШ пен Қатар сонымен бірге Иран көмектескен. Басқа тұсы айтылмайды. Атысты тоқтату туралы...

Depois de mais um dia de trabalho sem tempo de pensar, de repente era noite. Só o tempo no ônibus num dia frio de garoa fina já era o suficiente para cansar qualquer ser humano, o que de fato estava rolando. Chegando em casa, tudo para fazer, mas nada foi feito. É o momento de […] Fonte

در ادامه رقابت‌های جام جهانی فوتبال ۲۰۲۰۶، تیم ملی آمریکا روز جمعه ۲۹ خرداد توانست دو بر صفر استرالیا را شکست دهد.

To preserve the history of L.A.’s Black queer underground clubs, this artist recreated them.

Sadili kesal lantaran harus mutar jauh ke Dusun Tanjung Beringin untuk mengeluarkan hasil kebunnya. Bukan karena jalan rusak, banjir atau longsor, tetapi jalan itu sengaja PT Wirakarya Sakti (WKS), putus. Sejak 20 April 2025, alat berat anak perusahaan Asia Pulp & Paper (APP), Sinarmas Grup ini sudah memutus 10 titik jalan di Desa Bukit Bakar, […] The post Dua Dekade Konflik Agraria Sinar Mas di Jambi, Akankah Ada Penyelesaian? appeared first on Mongabay.co.id.

O presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, desferiu ataques diretos contra o presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) e sinalizou um tom de interferência na soberania brasileira, durante entrevista concedida ao site estadunidense “Axios”, repercutida nesta sexta-feira (19). O político de extrema-direita classificou o presidente brasileiro como uma pessoa “muito volátil” e afirmou que […] Fonte

تغییر تاکتیک جمهوری اسلامی؛ تشکیل هسته‌های مخفی سپاه در عراق برای حمله به کشورهای حاشیه خلیج فارس

World Cup co-hosts United States overcame Australia 2-0 on Friday in Seattle to move into the knockout stages at the 2026 tournament.

Les Brésiliens, tenus en échec (1-1) lors de la première journée contre le Maroc, doivent faire le plein contre Haïti qui a perdu son premier match contre l'Écosse (0-1), pour le compte de la deuxième journée du groupe C. Coup d'envoi à 00h30 TU.

(The Center Square) – Seattle-based tax attorney Scott Edwards says he will interpret the constitution as written if elected to the Washington Supreme Court, as a challenge to the state’s income tax looms. Edwards is running for Position 1 against incumbent Justice Colleen Melody, whom Gov. Bob Ferguson recently appointed to the court after she had worked under him at the state attorney general’s office, as well as Laura Christensen Colberg, an attorney and Snohomish County pro tem court commissioner. In a recent interview with The Center Square, Edwards explained his tax-law background and judicial philosophy, concerns over judicial appointments, the court’s role as a check on the other branches of government and how he views prior rulings as voters weigh their choices ahead of an August primary. The following Q&A has been edited for length and clarity. The Center Square: For voters who do not know you, who are you, and what would your background add to the Washington Supreme Court? Edwards: I’m a tax attorney. I have been representing Washington taxpayers for over 30 years. My practice focuses on Washington state and local taxes. I also teach state and local tax at the University of Washington School of Law, which I have been doing for over 20 years. My practice involves helping clients understand and pay the taxes they owe, but also helping to ensure that the government applies the tax laws fairly, as written, consistently and in accordance with the Constitution. Taxes are statutory provisions, so interpreting statutes and making sure they are consistent with the Constitution is the cornerstone of state and local tax practice. It is also the primary function of the Washington Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the language of state statutes and the state constitution. I think my 30 years of experience put me in a unique position with respect to the candidates for Position 1. I have handled over a dozen Washington Supreme Court cases. The Center Square: If elected, this would be your first time on the bench. How would you describe your judicial philosophy, especially in cases involving constitutional limits, separation of powers and taxpayer issues? Edwards: My judicial philosophy is pretty straightforward. The role of a judge is to interpret the law as written and in accordance with the language of the Constitution, as written — not to inject policy preferences and reason backward from a desired outcome. That is exactly how I advise clients as an attorney. You cannot inject your policy views. You have to advise clients on what the law is. ​​One of the reasons why I've handled so many Supreme Court cases is that taxes tend to be a matter of substantial public importance. Making sure the government follows the law as written and within the constraints of the Constitution is the fundamental role of the court within our system of government, which has three coequal branches and a system of checks and balances. The court’s role is to serve as that check and balance against legislative and executive overreach, not to be an additional Legislature or an additional executive. The Center Square: You have raised concerns about the way recent Supreme Court appointments have been made. What concerns should voters have about that process? Edwards: The history of our state constitution is important. When Washington was a territory, judges were appointed by the territorial governor. One of the concerns people had at the time of statehood was that judges appointed by the executive would carry out the desires of the executive. That is a reason Washington’s constitution provides for judges to be elected by the people, not appointed by the executive. One reason I am running is because a pattern has developed in Washington where sitting judges retire before the end of the term that the people elected them to, allowing the governor to appoint their successor. That person then runs as an incumbent and, frequently, in that first election and sometimes after that, draws no challenger. That undermines the whole process and takes away the people’s right to vote for their judges. I'm running to restore independence to focus on a principled analysis and the rule of law. The Center Square: Given your concerns about Justice Melody’s appointment and your own work challenging the state’s capital gains tax, how should voters think about potential recusal questions if an income-tax case reaches the court? Edwards: The question of recusal is an issue that arises in the context of a specific case that would come before the court. I do not want to weigh in on whether Justice Melody should recuse herself from a future income-tax case because that debate is premature. The reality is that other people are going to argue that my experience as a tax attorney, particularly my experience challenging the capital gains tax, would be cause for me to recuse myself. I think the arguments with respect to either of us in that regard are premature and would need to be dealt with if and when that is something that comes before the court. The Center Square: Many candidates say they support judicial independence. Do you see the state Supreme Court as already being partisan? Edwards: The Washington Supreme Court, as currently comprised, is recognized nationally as one of the most activist progressive supreme courts in the country. The court has not shied away from injecting its own policy preferences into its decisions rather than interpreting statutes and the Constitution as written. That is exactly why I am running: to move away from policy-focused decision-making and return to a focus on the rule of law. When I was trying to craft my voter statement, which is limited to 200 words, it was interesting to me that the words “fair” and “independent” are likely to appear in all 16 candidates’ voter statements. What sets me apart from many of the people running is being clear about what I mean by that: focusing on statutes and the Constitution as written, and not bringing a policy bent to read into or out of things that are not there. The Center Square: You helped litigate the Quinn case, which upheld Washington’s capital gains tax. What should voters take from that ruling as they consider candidates ahead of potential income-tax litigation? Edwards: I do not know that looking at past rulings will help voters decide who they should vote for in an election. I would be skeptical as to whether the Quinn case would be a significant case impacting the analysis and ruling in a challenge to the income tax. The ultimate ruling in Quinn was that the capital gains tax is an excise tax imposed on the activity that gives rise to the gain rather than on the income received. There is no similar type of structure in the income tax. I do not anticipate there being any likelihood that anybody is going to argue that the income tax is actually an excise tax. I suspect that, rather than the characterization of what type of tax it is, the constitutional issue would be whether it violates the uniformity clause of the state constitution. That was not an issue the court got to or discussed in Quinn. That is another reason I do not see Quinn as particularly relevant to the arguments the Supreme Court could consider in a challenge to the income tax. The Center Square: These are nonpartisan races, but endorsements and fundraising can still have a partisan feel. Has that been a challenge as a candidate? Edwards: It is an interesting dynamic. When the governor’s appointee has a fundraising event at the convention center with the governor, the attorney general and the retiring justice she was appointed to replace, and the governor is inviting supporters of his campaign to that event, it certainly has a partisan feel. When the governor’s appointee has public support from the governor, the attorney general and the retiring justice she was appointed to replace, it certainly has a partisan feel. I do not have those types of connections. I cannot imagine those would be doors open to me. One of my big concerns is that if the view becomes that the law is whatever five of nine Supreme Court justices decide on a given day, then we lose faith in the rule of law. The judiciary is not serving as the appropriate check and balance on the other branches of government. We need to get back to basics. Regardless of political viewpoint, that means interpreting statutes and the Constitution as written. The Center Square: Your opponent, Laura Christensen Colberg, has emphasized her judicial experience as a pro tem court commissioner. How should voters compare that with your experience litigating complex tax and constitutional cases? Edwards: Experience as a court-appointed arbitrator or pro tem court commissioner is not full-time experience. It is part-time, as assigned. The nature of that work is much more focused on factual resolution of very fact-specific issues. In Laura Christensen Colberg’s area, that means family law issues involving family members and disputes over custody and divorce. Those are very significant issues for the individuals involved, and I do not want to suggest in any way that it is not important work. But it is very rare that those types of matters deal with the statutory and constitutional interpretation questions that the Supreme Court handles. The Supreme Court does not hear trials. By the time matters get before the Supreme Court, the facts have been established in the record. The Supreme Court takes cases that present an issue of significant public importance, where there is a question about what the law or Constitution means and how that impacts whether what happened below was decided correctly. That is a fundamentally different type of role from that of a court commissioner or arbitrator. The Center Square: What message do you want to leave with voters heading into the August primary? Edwards: My core message is that I am running to bring a focus on the rule of law, interpreting statutes and the Constitution as written without regard to my personal opinion about what is or is not good policy. For voters, the first question is whether people are happy with the way things are currently going, with the court deciding what is good policy or not, or whether they want to return to the court being a neutral umpire and interpreting statutes and the Constitution as written. If so, voters should focus on what candidates say about their judicial philosophy. If candidates are not speaking about that, voters should be suspect of what their focus is going to be.

(The Center Square) - After serving as a Snohomish County pro tem court commissioner for 18 years, family law attorney Laura Christensen Colberg has fixed her sights on the Washington Supreme Court. She’s running for Position 1 against incumbent Justice Colleen Melody, whom Gov. Bob Ferguson recently appointed to the court after she had worked under him at the state attorney general’s office, and tax attorney Scott Edwards. In a recent interview with The Center Square, Colberg laid out her judicial experience, constitutional interpretation, limits on what candidates can say about issues likely to come before the court, and why she thinks voters should focus on impartiality ahead of a contested August primary for Melody’s seat. The following Q&A has been edited for length and clarity. The Center Square: For voters who may not know you, why did you decide to run for the Washington Supreme Court? Colberg: I come from a background in family law, having practiced privately for about 30 years, and for the last 18 of those years, I have also served as a pro tem court commissioner in Snohomish County Superior Court. That means I’m actually the one wearing the black robe and making the decisions in mostly family law cases. As part of that process, I have learned that it can be difficult sometimes. It’s not as easy as it seems to review the evidence, weigh the testimony, understand what the application of law is, and follow the law, even if it leads to someplace that I would rather it not go. I think my judicial experience is greater than that of either opponent in my race. Justice Melody joined the Supreme Court bench only six months ago, and Mr. Edwards has been a practicing attorney without any judicial experience. So I think that sets me apart. Family law is also a voice that has been missing almost entirely on the Washington Supreme Court. I think that’s the area of law the average Washingtonian is most likely to come into contact with the court system, whether through divorce, domestic violence or custody issues. It reaches real people and brushes up against families and children in particular. The Center Square: You’ve written that courts have to start with the Constitution, and that legislation crossing constitutional lines should be declared unconstitutional. How does that philosophy shape your approach to legislation that pushes constitutional boundaries? Colberg: If that comes to the court, there will be arguments on both sides. Some will say the Constitution says this, and therefore it is allowed; others will say the Constitution does not allow this, and here is the authority and precedent for that. I would consider arguments on both sides, look at the Constitution and read it myself, and understand that different people can read different meanings into the same words. We have a court system for a reason. If everybody read the same thing the same way every time, we would be out of a job. Where there is a dispute or ambiguity, you look at how it has been interpreted in the past, and then you look at whether there has been a mistake in the past. We have a history of sometimes interpreting things the wrong way, and that is why the Supreme Court has the mandate to overturn past precedent. It is a case-by-case analysis. I will read, understand, research and not substitute my own judgment for the arguments in front of me, but be persuaded by the one that I think is most in line with the Constitution as written or what is clearly intended. The Center Square: How should voters understand how you would approach cases where precedent, constitutional issues, tax policy, public safety or legislative intent collide? Colberg: Where legislation collides with precedent, we have precedent that says precedent is not overturned unless it is wrongly decided and currently harmful. There also has to be a real, live controversy, and someone with standing. Just because a law may be unconstitutional on the books does not mean it comes before the Supreme Court unless there is a case and a litigant who challenges it. A Supreme Court justice does not just get to clean house. The process is the same no matter the issue. If a decision was wrongly decided and is currently harmful, the Supreme Court has a duty to correct it. Sometimes that happens decades later. More rarely, it can be a faster turnaround to adjust something that was wrong to begin with. But that mechanism should not be like a whipsaw, in which every change in administration or every election means we have different precedents, different laws and different decisions. Predictability, consistency and stability in the court system are important so that litigants and attorneys know what to expect under similar circumstances. The Center Square: Are there parts of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in either the Blake or Quinn cases where you think voters should pay closer attention when assessing candidates? Colberg: That is an area I am going to decline to comment on, because Quinn had to do with the capital gains tax. Now we have perhaps similar, perhaps not-so-similar income tax legislation coming forward. If I were even to point the public to this, it would indicate that I disagree with the majority or agree with the dissent. I cannot put myself in that box because I am required to maintain neutrality, so I can hear all arguments without having predetermined which ones I like. The Center Square: Can you explain those judicial ethics rules for voters, especially when the income tax issue is front and center this year? Colberg: The code of judicial ethics governs judges and candidates for judicial positions. It restrains us from personally soliciting donations. I cannot ask people for money, and I think the idea is that we should not be buying our justice. There should not be the appearance that, because someone contributed to a campaign, therefore this judicial officer owes them something or is likely to make a decision that favors them, their business or their group interests. That does tie our hands a little bit, because when we're trying to fundraise for a campaign, a third party has to make the pitch and the ask. The other restriction is that we cannot promise or comment on issues or possible cases that may come before us. That is important because if I say I do not want to pay another tax in Washington and I go into a case having made that comment in public, people will think that when I make a decision in favor of that outcome, I had pre-decided it. That creates a partisan judiciary. If this is a nonpartisan race, and we want the judiciary to remain nonpartisan so it can be the checks and balances for the two partisan branches of government, then we lose the point of separation of powers and checks and balances if judicial candidates are making those promises. It is hard to say: "Vote for me; I cannot promise you anything; I cannot ask you for money." But you run on experience, character and the person you trust most to make decisions in the moment, do the work and do so without owing anybody any favors or even appearing to have a conflict of interest. The Center Square: Do you think the state Supreme Court is already partisan, or do recent appointments prompt concerns about partisanship? Colberg: Where I think some partisanship comes into play is by the nature of the constitutional authority given to a partisan elected governor to appoint justices when a prior justice retires before the end of a term. That replacement has a little bit of a leg up in the next election, even if they have to run, because now they are the incumbent. To the average citizen, the incumbent has somehow already earned the job or is maybe doing an okay job, and incumbents often face little opposition in elections. That becomes a way for a partisan governor — not to use the term “stack the court,” but to stack the court — to essentially hand-pick those justices who still have to run for election. That is what is going on in my race. There is an incumbent who has been on the bench for several months, appointed by the governor. I want to give voters a choice. If you look at the current state of the court, six of the nine Supreme Court justices began their terms as appointees of Democratic governors. Does that mean they are leaning in a partisan direction? I think the fact that five open seats in this election are getting so much attention and press means at least some voters in Washington think so. I personally know that any judicial officer I have encountered on any level of any court is mostly there for the right reasons, doing their best and doing the right thing. I do not think partisanship is nonexistent, but I am not going to slap an overarching label on any individual justice, because well-meaning people can still disagree on how decisions are made. The Center Square: How do you evaluate endorsements in a judicial race? Colberg: I have a short but growing list of endorsements, and I have asked people I have worked with — judges who have seen my work, commissioners I have worked side by side with. I want people to endorse me because they know who I am as a person, what competence I have as an attorney, and how I have served as a court commissioner. I am not driving for a list of endorsements so much as for people to get to know me. Votes should not cost money and should not cost compromising just to say what the audience you are speaking to wants to hear. At this point, I do have some judges and commissioners I have worked with primarily. The Center Square: What should voters be asking themselves heading into the August primary? Colberg: Whom do you trust? Which of the candidates shares values that align with yours in the sense of how they make decisions? Will they be impartial? Will they go where the law leads, even if they do not like it? Or will there be some shade of loyalty to a party or an interest group? Really make sure your judiciary is as impartial as you want it to be, and not just on one issue. The income tax issue is certainly at the forefront of everybody’s mind, but even if that case comes up in the next six months over the two-year term, there are going to be many more cases. Do you want a justice who is going to be thorough, read every case and understand every argument before deciding? Or do you think someone is going to have their mind made up before they even hear the case based on endorsements, contributions, who is supporting them and who may be expecting them to act toward their own benefit?

اثر جنگ خاورمیانه بر بازار خودروهای برقی اروپا