The Supreme Court has not become more restrictive in protecting the right to privacy, so this claim is false.
We can arrive at this answer because:
- The Supreme Court understood that the right to privacy is essential to protect citizens, especially those involved in marginalized situations.
- For this reason, the Supreme Court decided to expand the privacy rights and not restrict them as shown in the question above.
This supreme court attitude is intended to promote greater protection for individuals who are marginalized and who may suffer intolerant and life-threatening attacks.
More information:
brainly.com/question/1145825?referrer=searchResults
Answer: ummm
Explanation: Ted, Bob Armstrong, or Gay dude
Answer:
the answer is rule of law.
Explanation:
Selective Incorporation can be defined as the law that has been laid down which prevents state government from creating or making laws that can affect or withdraw the rights of citizens or people in America.
Two examples of real-life instances where a person might engage in an error in reasoning and, as a result, come to a faulty conclusion about something that they observed are:
1. Concluding that a person is harsh because his face is not cheerful.
2. Predicting that it will rain because the weather is gloomy.
<h3>What is a Faulty Conclusion?</h3>
A faulty conclusion is reached when the pattern of reasoning is faulty. Before a conclusion can be reached on a matter, it is vital to test the observations beyond all reasonable doubts.
If this is not done, the probability of reaching a faulty conclusion will be high.
Learn more about faulty conclusions here:
brainly.com/question/2141635