<em><u>Hey</u></em><em><u>!</u></em><em><u>!</u></em><em><u>!</u></em>
<em><u>Here</u></em><em><u>'s</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>y</u></em><em><u>our</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>answer</u></em><em><u>:</u></em>
<em><u>Mandamus</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>:</u></em><em><u>a writ issued by a superior court commanding the performance of a specified official act or duty</u></em>
<h3>
<em><u>Hope</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>it</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>will</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>help</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>you</u></em><em><u>.</u></em><em><u>.</u></em><em><u>.</u></em><em><u>.</u></em></h3>
<em><u>~</u></em><em><u>P</u></em><em><u>r</u></em><em><u>a</u></em><em><u>g</u></em><em><u>y</u></em><em><u>a</u></em>
Answer: Encouraging the courts to make the right choice
Explanation:
Media coverage is beneficial in the sense that it can keep the American public informed on rulings that would fundamentally set the groundwork for future rulings. For example take the case of the State of Minnesota v. Derek Chauvin. This was a rare example of a police officer being punished for grave misdeeds.
Media coverage may put pressure on a court to make a right decision. However in some cases this can become problematic, swaying the jury one way or another and making them partial when they are to remain impartial.
D. 30 days. hope this helps
I think that it was completely childish. i mean don’t get me wrong, it was hilarious, but trump really really annoyed me. neither of them could get a proper answer out and it annoyed the hell out of me. the fact that trump didn’t denounce white supremacy just didn’t sit right with me
Because they all give you a right to act on
