<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.
