The legal realism approach treats laws as a tool that needs to be regularly reexamined and adjusted. It defines legal rights and legal duties as whatever the courts say they are whereas "natural law" treats laws as evolved to reflect the principles found in nature. It’s a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
<u>Answer:</u>
This case was not meant to be a precedent and It was decided in a 5–4 vote.
Option: (A) and (B)
<u>Explanation:
</u>
- The Bush v/s Gore case of 2000 was unusual because the Supreme Court decision in the case ordering the initial count to be considered as final brought a wave of mixed responses throughout the United States.
- The decision was voted 5-4 by the Supreme Court bench of 9 justices hearing the case.
- The critics interpreted from the judgment issued that the case was not meant to be taken as a precedent for any cases in the future.
I would have taken the same approach as the Nuremberg prosecutors because the Nazi leaders committed a crime against humanity through the Holocaust.
<h3>What was the Holocaust?</h3>
The Nazi Party in Germany decided on the Final Solution to the Jewish question by committing genocide.
During the Holocaust, more than 6 million European Jews were massacred in concentration camps and through gas chambers.
The crime of systematically cleansing an ethnic group is a crime against humanity.
Thus, I would have taken the same approach as the Nuremberg prosecutors because the Nazi leaders committed a crime against humanity through the Holocaust.
Learn more about the Holocaust at brainly.com/question/12962
#SPJ1
