Answer: Democracy allows people to choose their leaders and the leaders get the powers to run the government.
Explanation:
The peaceful transfer of power is considered important in democracy. In this the powers or leadership is smoothly handed over to the newly elected or selected members of the population. This results after the election or the during transmission of powers to different political regime.
I believe the answer is married filing jointly. pls make my answer brainliest
Answer:
As a judge, you should be required to pick from a limited range of sentences for each offense.
Explanation:
Some may argue that having passed a difficult bar exam to be licensed to practice law, spending years prosecuting or defending criminal cases, and being involved in thousands of criminal trials should qualify a judge to be free to make any sentencing decision they want—but this notion is incorrect.
Although judges tend to be extremely experienced and highly intelligent, granting judges too much leeway in sentencing decisions leads to issues like sentencing disparity (disproportionate sentencing in similar cases). Before the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) in 1984, sentencing disparities within the United States justice system were largely unaddressed, so the SRA sought to address sentencing disparities with the imposition of mandatory sentencing guidelines for federal sentences. However, the SRA limited the power of judges to a great extent, an issue that would be addressed in the <em>United States v. Booker</em> (2005) Supreme Court case, with the court ruling the sentencing guidelines imposed by the SRA be deemed advisory rather than mandatory. What can be learned from these legal developments is that sentencing guidelines are necessary for reducing disparity within the justice system, but should remain advisory so as to not place any excessive limitations on the authority or sentencing liberty of judges.
The closest answer to the Supreme Court's legal precedent—our ideal in this case—would be picking from a limited range of sentences for each offense rather than having no limitations at all, as the latter would likely result in a return to the non-uniform, disparity-ridden justice system seen before the passage of the SRA.
Answer: both of them will have the fault.
Explanation:well, if I were to be the Judge of this case, I will hold both to be at fault. On Sutton's part, she leased the house out and she should have kept it in a good shape. Though the house was not in good shape, Laws had lodge series of complaints concerning the disrepair, which means that Sutton should have had it repaired.
Sutton promised Laws that he was going to repair the stairs, so, I would say, Laws would have assumed that Sutton would have repaired the stairs before he(laws) returned back from his business trip.
However, we should not forget that whenever we assess a situation according to the law there must have been a legal contract but in this case, Laws never entered into a contract with Sutton to make the repairs. Which means that Laws cannot fully blame Sutton. Therefore, i will hold both responsible.
Answer:
Legal Realism school of jurisprudential thought, according to which shifting the legal structure of Dixonville in order to account for the changes that are occurring. Whereas the remaining ones are not relevant in this context.
