If the citizens were not required to serve on jury, we had to rely solely on government decision to establish the law.
This actually had a lot of negative outcomes. Such as the people could no longer held the power in lawmaking process which cause government could do whatever they like.
Some achievements of the progressive movement include <span>ensuring that leaders are responsible for the needs of its citizens and curtailing the abuses of those in the position of power cannot be ignored. This is because p</span><span>rogressive thinkers did a great deal to ensure that all voices in the political discourse are heard and to promote the general welfare of American citizens. Remember progression means to move forward :)</span>
I would say A) evolving attitudes of the public, D) current events, and E) ideologies of individual justices.
I don't think B is correct because the judicial branch is supposed to act as a check against the executive branch and therefore cannot be instructed to rule a certain way by any president, and I don't think C is correct because changes to the bill of rights would have less impact on interpretation of the constitution and more of an impact on the constitution/law itself
“Society was liberalized, and Gorbachev sought détente with the USA so as to be able to transfer funding from defense to civil society. He declared that he would not support Communist regimes in other countries if their peoples were opposed to them. He thus started a chain reaction which led to the fall of communism in Europe.”
