Answer:
Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
Supreme Court decision presiding that the Fourth Amendment's defense in contradiction of unreasonable explorations and appropriations must be prolonged to the states in addition to the federal government. This upturned Polka v Connecticut, asserting that defense from double jeopardy does relate in state courts.
Explanation: the court looked at the fourteenth amendment to make their decision and looks like they could`t decide
<u>No</u><u> </u><u>criminal</u><u> </u><u>crime</u><u> </u><u>should</u><u> </u><u>not</u><u> </u><u>be</u><u> </u><u>heard</u><u> </u><u>judges</u><u> </u><u>other</u><u> </u><u>than</u><u> </u><u>professional</u><u> </u><u>and</u><u> </u><u>paid</u><u> </u><u>judges</u><u> </u><u>because</u><u> </u><u>they</u><u> </u><u>have</u><u> </u><u>a</u><u> </u><u>lot</u><u> </u><u>of</u><u> </u><u>experience</u><u> </u><u>about</u><u> </u><u>these</u><u> </u><u>kinds</u><u> </u><u>of</u><u> </u><u>cases</u>
Author identification is the term that best matches the description given. Hence, option A is correct.
<h3>What is author identification?</h3>
Author identification is the process of selecting the most likely author of unidentified works from a group of potential authors. Authorship identification is frequently taken into account in text categorization tasks.
It covers the process of choosing the right candidate from a set of contenders to be the content's creator by using relevant information gleaned from the text. As a result, stylometry identifies relevant traits that provide context for authorial difference.
Thus, option A is correct.
For more information about Author identification, click here:
brainly.com/question/10567906
#SPJ1
Judicial restraint is the political theory that says courts shouldn't, unless absolutely required, issue rulings that broaden or alter the character of existing laws.
<h3>Justiciable constraint is exercised by whom?</h3>
A jurist (judge or justice) who upholds a philosophy of restraint can be described as one who considers democracy to have intrinsic, rather than just instrumental, value, that the judiciary is indeed the least powerful of the three branches of government, and who values stability and predictability in the lawmaking process.
<h3>Why do advocates of judicial restraint assert that judges are impervious to public sentiment?</h3>
They are freed from the strain of the outer world of public opinion since they do not have to worry about being reelected. In the end, the majority may not always be correct. The fact that the Founders established appointed judges and elected legislators is not by coincidence.
Learn more about Judicial restraint: brainly.com/question/29545866
#SPJ4
