Answer:
Elections affect the Supreme Court like this:
When a president is elected in the US, they are most likely to be of one political party or another. The president also appoints a Supreme Court Justice. If a president is considering appointing a judge, they will probably appoint someone who shares their views, so as to sway matters that get taken to the Supreme Court in their favor.
Explanation:
Example, because I'm not sure I explained correctly: If a president is more left-leaning, they can (and probably will) appoint a left-leaning judge, so that they will judge matters as they or their political party would judge them. Appointing a judge with whom you disagree with isn't a strategic idea, because the president's ideals may be very different from a right-leaning judge. t-leaning, they can (and probably will) appoint a left-leaning judge, so that they will judge matters as they or their political party would judge them. Appointing a judge with whom you disagree isn't a strategic idea, because the president's ideals may be very different from a right-leaning judge.
This is a place where people ask for their needs. I don’t think it’s cool to do these types of things
A body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed.Please mark me brainlist answer!
Answer:
the just-world hypothesis
Explanation:
When misfortunes befall a person, others sometimes think the victim of circumstances deserved what happened. One reason put forth to explain why someone would think like that has been called <u>the just-world hypothesis</u>.
The just-world hypothesis is the idea that people need to believe one will get what one deserves so strongly that they will rationalize an inexplicable injustice by naming things the victim might have done to deserve it.
It means that religion will never meddle with running the nation, and it can't figure out who's chosen for specific positions and who isn't. For instance, they can't dismiss qualified possibility for having distinctive religious convictions.
The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is a proviso inside Article VI, Clause 3. By its plain terms, no administrative officeholder or worker can be required to cling to or acknowledge a specific religion or tenet as an essential to holding a bureaucratic office or a national government work. It promptly pursues a provision requiring all government and state officers to take a pledge or attestation to help the Constitution. This statement contains the main express reference to religion in the first seven articles of the U.S. Constitution.
