Answer:
Explanation:
He compares the role of a supreme court justice to that of an umpire in baseball or a referee in football or hockey.
He says for example, that those neutrals would never favor a team for person reasons. A team would never get unfair treatment if they were in a do or die match and had not been in such a match for 50 or more years while their opponents had one this match multiple times. Such behavior would be unthinkable.
He stated that one must uphold the rules as given to him. The idea of a referee or umpire falls apart a little here, but a supreme court justice is not obligated to uphold rules which are unconstitutional. His job is to fairly judge what should be decided. It does not matter what his own thoughts on abortion might be: he must rule on what the constitution would say about such matters.
Sometimes it is not always easy.
Answer and Explanation:
B1: We can analyze the relevance of the hypodermic theory in the current world through the news about the elaboration of vaccines against the coronavirus. This is because we can perceive the same global feeling of relief and hope in all countries with news about vaccination showing that studies on hypodermic theory are relevant, since this theory states that a media message has the power to affect a mass population in a relatively similar way.
B2: Promoting equality within a diverse community, allows all citizens to have quick access to quality information. This prevents the population from being deceived or even exploited by the mass of media owners within that society.
Answer:
civil case
Explanation:
Diversity jurisdiction includes is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction whereby US district courts (e.g., trial courts of general jurisdiction in the federal judiciary) have the power to hear a <u>civil</u> case where the parties are "diverse" in citizenship, indicating that they are citizens of different states or non-U.S. citizens. A dispute between two individuals from two different states is an example of diversity jurisdiction. It is a method federal courts use to gain jurisdiction over a case involving individuals or entities from two different states.
