Вопросы по дисциплине:
Судебный процесс
Сбросить фильтр
| № | Вопрос | Действия |
|---|---|---|
| 161 | Read the text “Checks on the Judiciary”. Checks on the Judiciary The Constitution provides several checks on the judiciary to be exercised by the other branches to maintain the system of separated powers. No one ascends to a federal judgeship without presidential appointment and Senate approval. The executive has the power of granting pardons and reprieves of judicial sentences, an especially significant check on state judiciaries when exercised by governors. Presidents have this same power but use it less often. Congress has even more external controls over the courts. The Senate can reject a nominee. Congress can impeach judges, also a rarely invoked but important check. It can effectively nullify a court’s interpretation of a statute’s imply by passing a new law, and it can react to a court's constitutional interpretation by introducing a constitutional amendment. The legislative branch is also empowered to change the federal court's appellate jurisdiction. Congress can also expand or contract the size of the federal judiciary, including altering the number of justices on the Supreme Court. While it often creates new district court judgeships, it has not changed the number of Supreme Court justices since 1869, when nine became the standard, nor is likely to do so. Just as judges are aware of external checks on their power, so too are they mindful of self-imposed limitations. For example, the courts will try to avoid ruling on cases they categorize as “political questions”, which are more properly resolved by the elected branches. Another doctrine is that of stare decisis, literally meaning “let the decision stand”, or following precedent in similar cases. Decisions of higher courts are binding on lower courts, but stare decisis implies that decisions of a higher court will be binding on future cases in that same court as well. Courts can and do overturn their previous decisions, but because of the norm of adherence1 to precedent, “the law” is relatively slow to change. Combined with the long tenure2 of judges, there is an important institutional memory available for judicial decision-making and a continuity that further strengthens support for the courts. Reduced to their most basic purpose, all courts in all political systems exist to resolve disputes. Conflicts presented before judges range from minor squabbles3 among private citizens to the scope and legitimacy of governmental action at the highest levels. Whether judges use written constitutions, elaborate legal codes, a common law tradition or religions texts, their decisions must be based on some generally recognized and approved standard if they are to endure. By removing courts from the daily political pressures and rapidly changing social forces confronted by other government leaders, societies can best preserve the element of judicial independence so vital to stable political systems.Notes: 1adherence - приверженность 2tenure – пребывание (в должности) 3squabble – пререкание, перебранка Identify if the statements below are true/false/not given 1All federal judges are appointed only by the Senate without presidential concern. | Открыть |
| 162 | Read the text “Checks on the Judiciary”. Checks on the Judiciary The Constitution provides several checks on the judiciary to be exercised by the other branches to maintain the system of separated powers. No one ascends to a federal judgeship without presidential appointment and Senate approval. The executive has the power of granting pardons and reprieves of judicial sentences, an especially significant check on state judiciaries when exercised by governors. Presidents have this same power but use it less often. Congress has even more external controls over the courts. The Senate can reject a nominee. Congress can impeach judges, also a rarely invoked but important check. It can effectively nullify a court’s interpretation of a statute’s imply by passing a new law, and it can react to a court's constitutional interpretation by introducing a constitutional amendment. The legislative branch is also empowered to change the federal court's appellate jurisdiction. Congress can also expand or contract the size of the federal judiciary, including altering the number of justices on the Supreme Court. While it often creates new district court judgeships, it has not changed the number of Supreme Court justices since 1869, when nine became the standard, nor is likely to do so. Just as judges are aware of external checks on their power, so too are they mindful of self-imposed limitations. For example, the courts will try to avoid ruling on cases they categorize as “political questions”, which are more properly resolved by the elected branches. Another doctrine is that of stare decisis, literally meaning “let the decision stand”, or following precedent in similar cases. Decisions of higher courts are binding on lower courts, but stare decisis implies that decisions of a higher court will be binding on future cases in that same court as well. Courts can and do overturn their previous decisions, but because of the norm of adherence1 to precedent, “the law” is relatively slow to change. Combined with the long tenure2 of judges, there is an important institutional memory available for judicial decision-making and a continuity that further strengthens support for the courts. Reduced to their most basic purpose, all courts in all political systems exist to resolve disputes. Conflicts presented before judges range from minor squabbles3 among private citizens to the scope and legitimacy of governmental action at the highest levels. Whether judges use written constitutions, elaborate legal codes, a common law tradition or religions texts, their decisions must be based on some generally recognized and approved standard if they are to endure. By removing courts from the daily political pressures and rapidly changing social forces confronted by other government leaders, societies can best preserve the element of judicial independence so vital to stable political systems.Notes: 1adherence - приверженность 2tenure – пребывание (в должности) 3squabble – пререкание, перебранка Identify if the statements below are true/false/not given Both the executive and presidents have the power of granting pardons and reprieves of judicial sentences. | Открыть |
| 163 | Read the text “Checks on the Judiciary”. Checks on the Judiciary The Constitution provides several checks on the judiciary to be exercised by the other branches to maintain the system of separated powers. No one ascends to a federal judgeship without presidential appointment and Senate approval. The executive has the power of granting pardons and reprieves of judicial sentences, an especially significant check on state judiciaries when exercised by governors. Presidents have this same power but use it less often. Congress has even more external controls over the courts. The Senate can reject a nominee. Congress can impeach judges, also a rarely invoked but important check. It can effectively nullify a court’s interpretation of a statute’s imply by passing a new law, and it can react to a court's constitutional interpretation by introducing a constitutional amendment. The legislative branch is also empowered to change the federal court's appellate jurisdiction. Congress can also expand or contract the size of the federal judiciary, including altering the number of justices on the Supreme Court. While it often creates new district court judgeships, it has not changed the number of Supreme Court justices since 1869, when nine became the standard, nor is likely to do so. Just as judges are aware of external checks on their power, so too are they mindful of self-imposed limitations. For example, the courts will try to avoid ruling on cases they categorize as “political questions”, which are more properly resolved by the elected branches. Another doctrine is that of stare decisis, literally meaning “let the decision stand”, or following precedent in similar cases. Decisions of higher courts are binding on lower courts, but stare decisis implies that decisions of a higher court will be binding on future cases in that same court as well. Courts can and do overturn their previous decisions, but because of the norm of adherence1 to precedent, “the law” is relatively slow to change. Combined with the long tenure2 of judges, there is an important institutional memory available for judicial decision-making and a continuity that further strengthens support for the courts. Reduced to their most basic purpose, all courts in all political systems exist to resolve disputes. Conflicts presented before judges range from minor squabbles3 among private citizens to the scope and legitimacy of governmental action at the highest levels. Whether judges use written constitutions, elaborate legal codes, a common law tradition or religions texts, their decisions must be based on some generally recognized and approved standard if they are to endure. By removing courts from the daily political pressures and rapidly changing social forces confronted by other government leaders, societies can best preserve the element of judicial independence so vital to stable political systems.Notes: 1adherence - приверженность 2tenure – пребывание (в должности) 3squabble – пререкание, перебранка Identify if the statements below are true/false/not given Congress has no external controls over the courts. | Открыть |
| 164 | Read the text “Checks on the Judiciary”. Checks on the Judiciary The Constitution provides several checks on the judiciary to be exercised by the other branches to maintain the system of separated powers. No one ascends to a federal judgeship without presidential appointment and Senate approval. The executive has the power of granting pardons and reprieves of judicial sentences, an especially significant check on state judiciaries when exercised by governors. Presidents have this same power but use it less often. Congress has even more external controls over the courts. The Senate can reject a nominee. Congress can impeach judges, also a rarely invoked but important check. It can effectively nullify a court’s interpretation of a statute’s imply by passing a new law, and it can react to a court's constitutional interpretation by introducing a constitutional amendment. The legislative branch is also empowered to change the federal court's appellate jurisdiction. Congress can also expand or contract the size of the federal judiciary, including altering the number of justices on the Supreme Court. While it often creates new district court judgeships, it has not changed the number of Supreme Court justices since 1869, when nine became the standard, nor is likely to do so. Just as judges are aware of external checks on their power, so too are they mindful of self-imposed limitations. For example, the courts will try to avoid ruling on cases they categorize as “political questions”, which are more properly resolved by the elected branches. Another doctrine is that of stare decisis, literally meaning “let the decision stand”, or following precedent in similar cases. Decisions of higher courts are binding on lower courts, but stare decisis implies that decisions of a higher court will be binding on future cases in that same court as well. Courts can and do overturn their previous decisions, but because of the norm of adherence1 to precedent, “the law” is relatively slow to change. Combined with the long tenure2 of judges, there is an important institutional memory available for judicial decision-making and a continuity that further strengthens support for the courts. Reduced to their most basic purpose, all courts in all political systems exist to resolve disputes. Conflicts presented before judges range from minor squabbles3 among private citizens to the scope and legitimacy of governmental action at the highest levels. Whether judges use written constitutions, elaborate legal codes, a common law tradition or religions texts, their decisions must be based on some generally recognized and approved standard if they are to endure. By removing courts from the daily political pressures and rapidly changing social forces confronted by other government leaders, societies can best preserve the element of judicial independence so vital to stable political systems.Notes: 1adherence - приверженность 2tenure – пребывание (в должности) 3squabble – пререкание, перебранка Identify if the statements below are true/false/not given It is the Senate that very often rejects the nominees of Supreme Court appointments. | Открыть |
| 165 | Read the text “Checks on the Judiciary”. Checks on the Judiciary The Constitution provides several checks on the judiciary to be exercised by the other branches to maintain the system of separated powers. No one ascends to a federal judgeship without presidential appointment and Senate approval. The executive has the power of granting pardons and reprieves of judicial sentences, an especially significant check on state judiciaries when exercised by governors. Presidents have this same power but use it less often. Congress has even more external controls over the courts. The Senate can reject a nominee. Congress can impeach judges, also a rarely invoked but important check. It can effectively nullify a court’s interpretation of a statute’s imply by passing a new law, and it can react to a court's constitutional interpretation by introducing a constitutional amendment. The legislative branch is also empowered to change the federal court's appellate jurisdiction. Congress can also expand or contract the size of the federal judiciary, including altering the number of justices on the Supreme Court. While it often creates new district court judgeships, it has not changed the number of Supreme Court justices since 1869, when nine became the standard, nor is likely to do so. Just as judges are aware of external checks on their power, so too are they mindful of self-imposed limitations. For example, the courts will try to avoid ruling on cases they categorize as “political questions”, which are more properly resolved by the elected branches. Another doctrine is that of stare decisis, literally meaning “let the decision stand”, or following precedent in similar cases. Decisions of higher courts are binding on lower courts, but stare decisis implies that decisions of a higher court will be binding on future cases in that same court as well. Courts can and do overturn their previous decisions, but because of the norm of adherence1 to precedent, “the law” is relatively slow to change. Combined with the long tenure2 of judges, there is an important institutional memory available for judicial decision-making and a continuity that further strengthens support for the courts. Reduced to their most basic purpose, all courts in all political systems exist to resolve disputes. Conflicts presented before judges range from minor squabbles3 among private citizens to the scope and legitimacy of governmental action at the highest levels. Whether judges use written constitutions, elaborate legal codes, a common law tradition or religions texts, their decisions must be based on some generally recognized and approved standard if they are to endure. By removing courts from the daily political pressures and rapidly changing social forces confronted by other government leaders, societies can best preserve the element of judicial independence so vital to stable political systems.Notes: 1adherence - приверженность 2tenure – пребывание (в должности) 3squabble – пререкание, перебранка Identify if the statements below are true/false/not given The legislative branch has no power to change the federal courts’ appellate jurisdiction. | Открыть |
| 166 | Read the text “Checks on the Judiciary”. Checks on the Judiciary The Constitution provides several checks on the judiciary to be exercised by the other branches to maintain the system of separated powers. No one ascends to a federal judgeship without presidential appointment and Senate approval. The executive has the power of granting pardons and reprieves of judicial sentences, an especially significant check on state judiciaries when exercised by governors. Presidents have this same power but use it less often. Congress has even more external controls over the courts. The Senate can reject a nominee. Congress can impeach judges, also a rarely invoked but important check. It can effectively nullify a court’s interpretation of a statute’s imply by passing a new law, and it can react to a court's constitutional interpretation by introducing a constitutional amendment. The legislative branch is also empowered to change the federal court's appellate jurisdiction. Congress can also expand or contract the size of the federal judiciary, including altering the number of justices on the Supreme Court. While it often creates new district court judgeships, it has not changed the number of Supreme Court justices since 1869, when nine became the standard, nor is likely to do so. Just as judges are aware of external checks on their power, so too are they mindful of self-imposed limitations. For example, the courts will try to avoid ruling on cases they categorize as “political questions”, which are more properly resolved by the elected branches. Another doctrine is that of stare decisis, literally meaning “let the decision stand”, or following precedent in similar cases. Decisions of higher courts are binding on lower courts, but stare decisis implies that decisions of a higher court will be binding on future cases in that same court as well. Courts can and do overturn their previous decisions, but because of the norm of adherence1 to precedent, “the law” is relatively slow to change. Combined with the long tenure2 of judges, there is an important institutional memory available for judicial decision-making and a continuity that further strengthens support for the courts. Reduced to their most basic purpose, all courts in all political systems exist to resolve disputes. Conflicts presented before judges range from minor squabbles3 among private citizens to the scope and legitimacy of governmental action at the highest levels. Whether judges use written constitutions, elaborate legal codes, a common law tradition or religions texts, their decisions must be based on some generally recognized and approved standard if they are to endure. By removing courts from the daily political pressures and rapidly changing social forces confronted by other government leaders, societies can best preserve the element of judicial independence so vital to stable political systems.Notes: 1adherence - приверженность 2tenure – пребывание (в должности) 3squabble – пререкание, перебранка Identify if the statements below are true/false/not given Being aware of external checks on their power, judges are not mindful of self-imposed limitations. | Открыть |
| 167 | Read the text “Checks on the Judiciary”. Checks on the Judiciary The Constitution provides several checks on the judiciary to be exercised by the other branches to maintain the system of separated powers. No one ascends to a federal judgeship without presidential appointment and Senate approval. The executive has the power of granting pardons and reprieves of judicial sentences, an especially significant check on state judiciaries when exercised by governors. Presidents have this same power but use it less often. Congress has even more external controls over the courts. The Senate can reject a nominee. Congress can impeach judges, also a rarely invoked but important check. It can effectively nullify a court’s interpretation of a statute’s imply by passing a new law, and it can react to a court's constitutional interpretation by introducing a constitutional amendment. The legislative branch is also empowered to change the federal court's appellate jurisdiction. Congress can also expand or contract the size of the federal judiciary, including altering the number of justices on the Supreme Court. While it often creates new district court judgeships, it has not changed the number of Supreme Court justices since 1869, when nine became the standard, nor is likely to do so. Just as judges are aware of external checks on their power, so too are they mindful of self-imposed limitations. For example, the courts will try to avoid ruling on cases they categorize as “political questions”, which are more properly resolved by the elected branches. Another doctrine is that of stare decisis, literally meaning “let the decision stand”, or following precedent in similar cases. Decisions of higher courts are binding on lower courts, but stare decisis implies that decisions of a higher court will be binding on future cases in that same court as well. Courts can and do overturn their previous decisions, but because of the norm of adherence1 to precedent, “the law” is relatively slow to change. Combined with the long tenure2 of judges, there is an important institutional memory available for judicial decision-making and a continuity that further strengthens support for the courts. Reduced to their most basic purpose, all courts in all political systems exist to resolve disputes. Conflicts presented before judges range from minor squabbles3 among private citizens to the scope and legitimacy of governmental action at the highest levels. Whether judges use written constitutions, elaborate legal codes, a common law tradition or religions texts, their decisions must be based on some generally recognized and approved standard if they are to endure. By removing courts from the daily political pressures and rapidly changing social forces confronted by other government leaders, societies can best preserve the element of judicial independence so vital to stable political systems.Notes: 1adherence - приверженность 2tenure – пребывание (в должности) 3squabble – пререкание, перебранка Identify if the statements below are true/false/not given The courts are willing to rule on cases they categorize as “political questions”. | Открыть |
| 168 | Read the text “Checks on the Judiciary”. Checks on the Judiciary The Constitution provides several checks on the judiciary to be exercised by the other branches to maintain the system of separated powers. No one ascends to a federal judgeship without presidential appointment and Senate approval. The executive has the power of granting pardons and reprieves of judicial sentences, an especially significant check on state judiciaries when exercised by governors. Presidents have this same power but use it less often. Congress has even more external controls over the courts. The Senate can reject a nominee. Congress can impeach judges, also a rarely invoked but important check. It can effectively nullify a court’s interpretation of a statute’s imply by passing a new law, and it can react to a court's constitutional interpretation by introducing a constitutional amendment. The legislative branch is also empowered to change the federal court's appellate jurisdiction. Congress can also expand or contract the size of the federal judiciary, including altering the number of justices on the Supreme Court. While it often creates new district court judgeships, it has not changed the number of Supreme Court justices since 1869, when nine became the standard, nor is likely to do so. Just as judges are aware of external checks on their power, so too are they mindful of self-imposed limitations. For example, the courts will try to avoid ruling on cases they categorize as “political questions”, which are more properly resolved by the elected branches. Another doctrine is that of stare decisis, literally meaning “let the decision stand”, or following precedent in similar cases. Decisions of higher courts are binding on lower courts, but stare decisis implies that decisions of a higher court will be binding on future cases in that same court as well. Courts can and do overturn their previous decisions, but because of the norm of adherence1 to precedent, “the law” is relatively slow to change. Combined with the long tenure2 of judges, there is an important institutional memory available for judicial decision-making and a continuity that further strengthens support for the courts. Reduced to their most basic purpose, all courts in all political systems exist to resolve disputes. Conflicts presented before judges range from minor squabbles3 among private citizens to the scope and legitimacy of governmental action at the highest levels. Whether judges use written constitutions, elaborate legal codes, a common law tradition or religions texts, their decisions must be based on some generally recognized and approved standard if they are to endure. By removing courts from the daily political pressures and rapidly changing social forces confronted by other government leaders, societies can best preserve the element of judicial independence so vital to stable political systems.Notes: 1adherence - приверженность 2tenure – пребывание (в должности) 3squabble – пререкание, перебранка Identify if the statements below are true/false/not given Stare decisis means that decisions of a higher court will be binding only on present cases. | Открыть |
| 169 | Read the text “Checks on the Judiciary”. Checks on the Judiciary The Constitution provides several checks on the judiciary to be exercised by the other branches to maintain the system of separated powers. No one ascends to a federal judgeship without presidential appointment and Senate approval. The executive has the power of granting pardons and reprieves of judicial sentences, an especially significant check on state judiciaries when exercised by governors. Presidents have this same power but use it less often. Congress has even more external controls over the courts. The Senate can reject a nominee. Congress can impeach judges, also a rarely invoked but important check. It can effectively nullify a court’s interpretation of a statute’s imply by passing a new law, and it can react to a court's constitutional interpretation by introducing a constitutional amendment. The legislative branch is also empowered to change the federal court's appellate jurisdiction. Congress can also expand or contract the size of the federal judiciary, including altering the number of justices on the Supreme Court. While it often creates new district court judgeships, it has not changed the number of Supreme Court justices since 1869, when nine became the standard, nor is likely to do so. Just as judges are aware of external checks on their power, so too are they mindful of self-imposed limitations. For example, the courts will try to avoid ruling on cases they categorize as “political questions”, which are more properly resolved by the elected branches. Another doctrine is that of stare decisis, literally meaning “let the decision stand”, or following precedent in similar cases. Decisions of higher courts are binding on lower courts, but stare decisis implies that decisions of a higher court will be binding on future cases in that same court as well. Courts can and do overturn their previous decisions, but because of the norm of adherence1 to precedent, “the law” is relatively slow to change. Combined with the long tenure2 of judges, there is an important institutional memory available for judicial decision-making and a continuity that further strengthens support for the courts. Reduced to their most basic purpose, all courts in all political systems exist to resolve disputes. Conflicts presented before judges range from minor squabbles3 among private citizens to the scope and legitimacy of governmental action at the highest levels. Whether judges use written constitutions, elaborate legal codes, a common law tradition or religions texts, their decisions must be based on some generally recognized and approved standard if they are to endure. By removing courts from the daily political pressures and rapidly changing social forces confronted by other government leaders, societies can best preserve the element of judicial independence so vital to stable political systems.Notes: 1adherence - приверженность 2tenure – пребывание (в должности) 3squabble – пререкание, перебранка Identify if the statements below are true/false/not given The decisions of judges must be based only on the use of written constitutions, elaborate legal codes, a common law tradition. | Открыть |
| 170 | Choose the only correct answer England is almost unique in having two different kinds of __________. | Открыть |