<u>Complete Question:</u>
An unanswered constitutional question about the judicial branch involves
A. who should approve judges and justices.
B. what “good behavior” means, with regard to judicial terms.
C. how a Supreme Court is created.
D. who should appoint judges and justices.
<u>Correct Option:</u>
B. what “good behavior” means, with regard to judicial terms.
<u>Explanation:</u>
"Good conduct" initially means "not bad behaviour" i.e. does not break the law. And as long as lawyers do nothing to catch them at any issue they will keep their circumstances alive. On a side note, I think this agreement was a stroke of genius by the creators.
The proof that judiciary can not be removed notes from the equation all perception of political retribution, indicating that the judge in question is easy to perform his rulings or comments without the fear of failing his work. The judiciary will actually do real things that it believes are.
Answer:
ExWhen the judges don’t like the precedent, they can usually find a way around it. If it is an appellate court, one which issued the prior decision, they can always overturn that decision if they have good reason to. For example, Federal Courts of Appeals sometimes make rulings which affect millions of people in several states, and those rulings sometimes cause unexpected and unwanted consequences. The next time the same issue comes before the same court, they could “clarify” their prior ruling, or “distinguish” the new case from the old, or explicitly “overturn” the old case.
The doctrine of stare decisis, which suggests that Courts should, when feasible, uphold prior decisions, especially when people rely on the certainty of settled law, is not binding, but advisory. So if a court sees a real need to revisit and change its earlier decision, they can.
For lower courts, it can be a little trickier: they are required to obey the rulings of higher courts. Still, even municipal or magistrate courts which hear misdemeanors and city ordinance cases will sometimes try to get around a precedent they don’t agree with, especially if it would cause (in their not-so-humble opinion) an injustice. Since they don’t have the authority to simply disregard the prior decision, they have to express their decision in language which allows them to say that the case in front of them is sufficiently different from the prior case that the rule doesn’t apply. This is often a stretch, and is likely to be struck down if appealed, but very few people at this lower court level can afford the fees necessary to pursue an appeal.
At its root, however, disregard of precedent stems from a judge’s personal or political opinion that the prior decision is wrong. planation
If I’m not wrong, there’s a table of standard deviations that will tell you the critical value
Answer:
thorw the case out bc this has happed to ,me
Explanation: