The president nominates Supreme Court justices, but the <u>Senate </u>body must approve them.
<h3> Why does this often cause such a dramatic fight?</h3>
This cause such a dramatic fight because the person that was selected by the president may not be liked by some or majority of the senate. Some may like and some may not and this leads to disagreement.
<h3>Which body must approve the nomination for justices?</h3>
The president is known to be the person that has the power to nominate the justices and in terms of their appointments. they are known to be made with the advice and consent of the house of Senate.
Therefore, Since, The president nominates Supreme Court justices, but the <u>Senate </u>body must approve them. This cause such a dramatic fight because the person that was selected by the president may not be liked by some or majority of the senate. Some may like and some may not and this leads to disagreement.
Learn more about Supreme Court justices from
brainly.com/question/18228641
#SPJ1
Boomtowns is a community that undergoes sudden and rapid population and economic growth
they become ghosttowns because they typically characterized as "overnight expansion" in both population and money
Answer:
The Supreme Court decision that decided the 2000 Presidential Election should go down in history as one of the court's most ill-conceived judgments. In issuing its poorly-reasoned ruling in Bush v. Gore, the court majority unnecessarily exposed itself to charges of partisanship and risked undermining the court's stature as an independent, impartial arbiter of the law. Although the court majority correctly identified constitutional problems in the specific recount proceedings ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, the decision to end all recount attempts did immeasurable damage to the equal protection rights the court claimed to be guarding, since it favored a convenient and timely tabulation of ballots over an accurate recording of the vote. In the controversy that followed this decision, some critics of the majority decision argued that the court had no business taking on Bush v. Gore in the first place, that it should have remained solely within the Florida courts (Ginsburg, J. [Dissent] Bush v. Gore [2000]). This paper will argue that the court was correct to intervene but that umm the resulting decision was flawed and inconsistent, with potentially serious, adverse implications for the Federal judiciary if the court continues to issue rulings in this way.
Explanation:
Answer:
C)Early people learned to produce their own food.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 implemented the U.S. government policy towards the Indian populations, which called for moving Native American tribes living east of the Mississippi River to lands west of the river.
