1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
SpyIntel [72]
3 years ago
14

Outline the process by which most federal judges are nominated and approved

Law
1 answer:
aleksandr82 [10.1K]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

The senate advises the president on the nominations of credible candidates by merit to become federal judges, the president then nominates the persons and the senate subsequently confirms the appointments.

Explanation:

The senate often recommends nominees. In some cases, the members of the house, who share the same political affiliations with the sitting president can recommend potential candidates. In the case of the U.S, the Senate Judiciary Committee would do confirmation hearings for each candidate and these legal officers are appointed as judges for a life term.  

In some countries, like France, the appointments are made with special considerations for those with advanced qualifications (such as Doctor of Law).  

You might be interested in
How does the Fourth Amendment protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the police? When are there exceptio
sammy [17]

INTERESTS PROTECTED

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government. However, the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures, but only those done by the government and deemed unreasonable under the law. To claim violation of Fourth Amendment as the basis for suppressing a relevant evidence, the court had long required that the claimant must prove that he himself was the victim of an invasion of privacy to have a valid standing to claim protection under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court has departed from such requirement, issue of exclusion is to be determined solely upon a resolution of the substantive question whether the claimant's Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, which in turn requires that the claimant demonstrates a justifiable expectation of privacy, which was arbitrarily violated by the government. In general, most warrantless searches of private premises are prohibited under the Fourth Amendment, unless specific exception applies. For instance, a warrantless search may be lawful, if an officer has asked and is given consent to search; if the search is incident to a lawful arrest; if there is probable cause to search and there is exigent circumstance calling for the warrantless search. Exigent circumstances exist in situations where a situation where people are in imminent danger, where evidence faces imminent destruction, or prior to a suspect's imminent escape. On the other hand, warrantless search and seizure of properties are not illegal, if the objects being searched are in plain view. Further, warrantless seizure of abandoned property, or of properties on an open field do not violate Fourth Amendment, because it is considered that having expectation of privacy right to an abandoned property or to properties on an open field is not reasonable. However, in some states, there are some exception to this limitation, where some state authorities have granted protection to open fields. States can always establish higher standards for searches and seizures protection than what is required by the Fourth Amendment, but states cannot allow conducts that violate the Fourth Amendment. Where there was a violation of one’s fourth amendment rights by federal officials, A bivens action can be filed against federal law enforcement officials for damages, resulting from an unlawful search and seizure. Under the Bivens action, the claimant needs to prove that there has been a constitutional violation of the fourth amendment rights by federal officials acting under the color of law. However, the protection under the Fourth Amendment can be waived if one voluntarily consents to or does not object to evidence collected during a warrantless search or seizure.

8 0
3 years ago
What are the federal rules of evidence and why are they needed
mihalych1998 [28]

Answer:

The four main traditional rules are real, demonstrative, documentary, and testimonial. These laws determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision.

Explanation:

The federal rules of general provisions, judicial notice, presumptions, relevancy and its limits, privileges, witnesses, opinions and expert testimony, hearsay, authentication and identification, contents of writing, photographs and recordings. They are needed because they govern the evidence at civil and criminal trails in US federal trial courts. The current rules were initially passed by congress in 1975, after years of drafting by the Supreme courts.

3 0
3 years ago
Dwi penalties in New Mexico for Interlock
julia-pushkina [17]
First Offense- misdemeanor up to 90 days in jail -$500 fine. Revoked drivers license for six months to one year. Mandatory DWI school.
7 0
3 years ago
How to sue someone for falsely accusing you in court
sergij07 [2.7K]

Answer:

get a lawyer

Explanation:

7 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Gideon faced many obstacles in getting his case to be heard by the U. S. Supreme Court. Were those difficulties (process and arg
Anni [7]

Answer: eu sou um paii

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • The full faith and credit clause of the constitution requires
    10·1 answer
  • When the Supreme Court rules on a case, how many opinions might be written to explain the verdict? A) one: the majority opinion
    7·1 answer
  • Cars are only as safe as their driver, so _____ is your best bet to lower your risk.
    11·2 answers
  • Who´s take a political decision
    13·1 answer
  • Which unique and successful method of documenting information on the streets is used by patrol officers?
    12·2 answers
  • Who undertook the first definitive study of fingerprints as a method of personal identification?
    8·1 answer
  • if a supreme court justice believes that the constitution should be interpreted exactly as written, rather than examined in the
    7·1 answer
  • " If you have been arrested on suspicion of DUI you can only be released after A. " you have been held for a minimum of 8 hours
    14·1 answer
  • What case set a precedent for the Supreme Court to rule a law as violating the Constitution?
    10·1 answer
  • How do you become a jury in court?
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!