The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Argue a case for appointing judges and then argue a case for having them elected.
In the case of appointing judges, many experts agree on the idea that appointed is better because judges have to be neutral. They serve the Constitution, they do not serve any political party or particular interests.
Once appointed, the judges are going to ratify, so it is supposed that their integrity is double-checked.
In other cases, some arguments favor the election of judges, stating that people should be trusted to elect judges. Through this election, judges will be driven to serve the people who put their trust in them to impart justice.
If they are elected, some voices agree that judges should be elected for a determined period, so people could evaluate if they did a good during their tenure.
However, in both cases, some advantages and disadvantages have to be resolved by law experts and politicians in their respective states.
Answer:
Whole Grains. ...
Beans and Lentils. ...
Fish. ...
Berries. ...
Winter Squash. ...
Soy. ...
Flaxseed, Nuts and Seeds. ...
Organic Yogurt. Men and women between 19 and 50 years of age need 1000 milligrams of calcium a day and 1200 milligrams if 50 or older.
The correct answer is A) his testimony.
The evidence that Joaquin has to support his version of the facts is his testimony.
Joaquin as a plumber has to double-check or triple-check his work before he is gone. His reputation is above all. But in this case, evidence that he has to support his version of the facts is his testimony. Owen should have asked Joaquin the kind of work he did, check it directly making the necessaries revisions, and ask for a guarantee in case the work was not done properly.
The other options of the question were B) Joaquin's testimony. C) None. D) Faulty work is a breach of the contract. E) Joaquin is liable for faulty workmanship.
