Answer:
A
Explanation:
I’m in highscool
Answer:
a) To ensure freedom from control by elected officials
Explanation:
Constitutionally (Article III), federal judges are appointed for life. The Constitution gives federal judges employment security so they may resolve cases without public or political pressure. Even if they make unfavorable judgments, federal judges can only be impeached.
They are sheltered from the political process yet being young and inexperienced encourages judges to remain on the bench long after good reason would have retired them. According to Eastman and UT professor Stephen Vladeck, term restrictions might diminish independence and let money influence the system. If judges were obliged to retire at 60, some industry or interest may have employed them later.
In many ways, Pyrrhus is a foil to Hamlet. For example, Pyrrhus is impulsive and rash, while Hamlet is contemplative and indecisive.
What is Pyrrhus?
Pyrrhus was a Hellenistic-era Greek king and statesman. He was the Aeacid royal house's king of the Greek Molossians tribe before succeeding to the throne of Epirus. He was regarded as being one of the greatest generals in ancient times and was one of early Rome's strongest adversaries. He suffered intolerably high losses in a number of his victories, giving rise to the phrase "Pyrrhic victory." 13-year-old Pyrrhus had become king of Epirus in 306 BC, but Cassander overthrew him four years later. He participated in the Diadochi Wars before being helped by Ptolemy I Soter to retake his throne in 297 BC. In the course of what became known as the Pyrrhic War,
Additionally, Pyrrhus is vengeful and driven by a desire for revenge, while Hamlet is more concerned with justice. Finally, Pyrrhus is single-minded in his pursuit of his goals, while Hamlet is easily distracted.
To learn more about Pyrrhus
brainly.com/question/5617546
#SPJ4
Answer:
Thank yo for asking this...I was waiting for someone to ask me this.
EXPLANATION: This article examines the extent to which state officials are subject to prosecution in foreign domestic courts for international crimes. We consider the different types of immunity that international law accords to state officials, the reasons for the conferment of this immunity and whether they apply in cases in which it is alleged that the official has committed an international crime. We argue that personal immunity (immunity ratione personae) continues to apply even where prosecution is sought for international crimes
