The way to achieve this impartiality – to free judges to decide cases based on what the law actually requires, and on nothing else – is to ensure that the judiciary is independent, or, put differently, not subject to reprisals for decisions on the bench.
But judicial independence is not an absolute or singular value defining our courts. The principle of judicial restraint is equally important – and it is inextricably linked to judicial independence. At one level, the tension between the two seems inescapable. But there is an important sense in which an independent judiciary and judicial restraint are flip sides of the same coin. Both aim to minimize the influence of extraneous factors on judicial decision-making. A judge must not decide a case with an eye toward public approbation, because whether a particular result is popular is irrelevant to whether it is legally sound. In the same way, a judge must not consult
I would think that people would want to stay were they are you can sometimes get a passport for the things you need and get
Answer:
The primary charge against Johnson was that he had violated the Tenure of Office Act, passed by Congress in March 1867, over his veto. ... The impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson had important political implications for the balance of federal legislative-executive power.
Explanation:
Cause: Violating the Tenure of Office Act
Outcome: Acquitted by the U.S. Senate,
The American dream. A husband who holds the job, wife that takes care of the kids, and one or two kids
Answer:
Chief Justice Marshall
Explanation:
In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall ruled in a way that established the doctrine of judicial review.
