Answer:
B
Explanation:
this is about the nomination of Robert Bork as a justice of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court picks are nominated by the president, but must reach approval from a vote in congress, meaning they are a presidential appointment.
With the case study given above, it may be ascertained that,
- The want to avoid 'The CSI Effect' is a non-discriminatory reason to eliminate the jurors in general, as it does not conflict to any social discrimination based upon gender, race or other such factors;
- Furthermore, it is to be assumed that 'The CSI Effect' is directly tied to age as per the beliefs of Angela, and involves social discrimination based on the age of jurors.
<h3>What is social discrimination?</h3>
Any discriminative act, which directly relates to a biased behavior based upon the factors such as age, race, gender, ethnicity, and other such factors contained under Constitution lead to social discrimination.
As per the beliefs of Angela, her act of wanting to avoid 'The CSI Effect' conflicts a social discrimination for young jurors only, and not in general, as it is a discrimination of age.
Hence, the significance of social discrimination is aforementioned.
Learn more about social discrimination here:
brainly.com/question/13964317
#SPJ1
Answer:
No.
Explanation:
False imprisonment occurs when a person is detained without justifiable reason. The customer mentioned in the text above was not arrested, neither the employee nor the store owner used force to force her to open the bag. Even though the employee did not look at the customer with courtesy, he did not arrest her, did not use force against her or prevent her from continuing on her way, which indicates that there was no action that could indicate that the employee or the store promoted false imprisonment.
Answer:
No, because if people fear they are most likely to rise up against things they dont like or rebel.
Explanation:
Joseph Stalin is an example of this
? I’d say 3,5,4,1,2 the explanation is because that’s the way I see it
