单选题The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court（）Ahas much greater power than other justices of the Supreme CourtBhas no greater voting power than other justices of the Supreme CourtChas greater say in deciding a caseDhas greater voting power than other justices of the Supreme Court
单选题
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court（）
A
has much greater power than other justices of the Supreme Court
B
has no greater voting power than other justices of the Supreme Court
C
has greater say in deciding a case
D
has greater voting power than other justices of the Supreme Court
参考解析
解析：
暂无解析
相关考题：
It was in 1954 that the Supreme Court ruled that the practice of segregating blacks into separate schools was unconstitional.() 此题为判断题(对，错)。
The president has the authority to appoint federal judges as vacancies occur, including members of the Supreme Court.The senate,however, must approve all treaties and confirm all appointments before they become official.()此题为判断题(对，错)。
which organization in the united states demonstrated strongly against any laws that might restrict gun ownership?A. The NRA (National Rifle Association).B. The Supreme Court.C. The Motion Picture Association.D. The Asian Society. .
In the case of Brown versus Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that _____. A. separate educational facilities had been illegalB. educational facilities had been separate but equalC. educational facilities had been equalD. separate educational facilities were inherently unequal
By saying “each meeting was packed”(line4,para6)the author means that_____A．the Supreme Court was authoritativeB．the BIO was a powerful organizationC．gene patenting was a great concernD．lawyers were keen to attend conventions
The ethical judgments of the Supreme Court justices have become an important issue recently.The court cannot_1_its legitimacy as guardian of the rule of law_2_justices behave like politicians.Yet,in several instances,justices acted in ways that_3_the court’s reputation for being independent and impartial.Justice Antonin Scalia,for example,appeared at political events.That kind of activity makes it less likely that the court’s decisions will be_4_as impartial judgments.Part of the problem is that the justices are not_5_by an ethics code.At the very least,the court should make itself_6_to the code of conduct that_7_to the rest of the federal judiciary.This and other similar cases_8_the question of whether there is still a_9_between the court and politics.The framers of the Constitution envisioned law_10_having authority apart from politics.They gave justices permanent positions_11_they would be free to_12_those in power and have no need to_13_political support.Our legal system was designed to set law apart from politics precisely because they are so closely_14_.Constitutional law is political because it results from choices rooted in fundamental social_15_like liberty and property.When the court deals with social policy decisions,the law it_16_is inescapably political-which is why decisions split along ideological lines are so easily_17_as unjust.The justices must_18_doubts about the court’s legitimacy by making themselves_19_to the code of conduct.That would make rulings more likely to be seen as separate from politics and,_20_,convincing as law.A.dismissedB.releasedC.rankedD.distorted
On a five to three vote,the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday-a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration.But on the more important matter of the Constitution,the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration’s effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.In Arizona v.United States,the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona’s controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law.The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to“establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization”and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial.Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.Justice Anthony Kennedy,joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberals,ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun.On the overturned provisions the majority held the congress had deliberately“occupied the field”and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers.However,the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement.That’s because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.Two of the three objecting Justice-Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas-agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute.The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia,who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the alien and Sedition Acts.The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as“a shocking assertion assertion of federal executive power”.The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities,even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter.In effect,the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with.Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government,and control of citizenship and the borders is among them.But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status,it could.It never did so.The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes,no state should be allowed to do so either.Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition ActsA.violated the Constitution.B.undermined the states’interests.C.supported the federal statute.D.stood in favor of the states.
In a rare unanimous ruling,the US Supreme Court has overturned the corruption conviction of a former Virginia governor,Robert McDonnell.But it did so while holding its nose at the ethics of his conduct,which included accepting gifts such as a Rolex watch and a Ferrari Automobile from a company seeking access to government.The high court’s decision said the judge in Mr.McDonnell’s trail failed to tell a jury that it must look only at his“official acts,”or the former governor’s decisions on“specific”and“unsettled”issues related to his duties.Merely helping a gift-giver gain access to other officials,unless done with clear intent to pressure those officials,is not corruption,the justices found.The court did suggest that accepting favors in return for opening doors is“distasteful”and“nasty.”But under anti-bribery laws,proof must be made of concrete benefits,such as approval of a contract or regulation.Simply arranging a meeting,making a phone call,or hosting an event is not an“official act.”The court’s ruling is legally sound in defining a kind of favoritism that is not criminal.Elected leaders must be allowed to help supporters deal with bureaucratic problems without fear of prosecution of bribery.“The basic compact underlying representative government,”wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the court,“assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act on their concerns.”But the ruling reinforces the need for citizens and their elected representatives,not the courts,to ensure equality of access to government.Officials must not be allowed to play favorites in providing information or in arranging meetings simply because an individual or group provides a campaign donation or a personal gift.This type of integrity requires will-enforced laws in government transparency,such as records of official meetings,rules on lobbying,and information about each elected leader’s source of wealth.Favoritism in official access can fan public perceptions of corruption.But it is not always corruption.Rather officials must avoid double standards,or different types of access for average people and the wealthy.If connections can be bought,a basic premise of democratic society–that all are equal in treatment by government-is undermined.Good government rests on an understanding of the inherent worth of each individual.The court’s ruling is a step forward in the struggle against both corruption and official favoritism.The underlined sentence（Para.1）most probably shows that the court____A.avoided defining the extent of McDonnell’s duties.B.made no compromise in convicting McDonnell.C.was contemptuous of McDonnell’s conduct.D.refused to comment on McDonnell’s ethics.
In a rare unanimous ruling,the US Supreme Court has overturned the corruption conviction of a former Virginia governor,Robert McDonnell.But it did so while holding its nose at the ethics of his conduct,which included accepting gifts such as a Rolex watch and a Ferrari Automobile from a company seeking access to government.The high court’s decision said the judge in Mr.McDonnell’s trail failed to tell a jury that it must look only at his“official acts,”or the former governor’s decisions on“specific”and“unsettled”issues related to his duties.Merely helping a gift-giver gain access to other officials,unless done with clear intent to pressure those officials,is not corruption,the justices found.The court did suggest that accepting favors in return for opening doors is“distasteful”and“nasty.”But under anti-bribery laws,proof must be made of concrete benefits,such as approval of a contract or regulation.Simply arranging a meeting,making a phone call,or hosting an event is not an“official act.”The court’s ruling is legally sound in defining a kind of favoritism that is not criminal.Elected leaders must be allowed to help supporters deal with bureaucratic problems without fear of prosecution of bribery.“The basic compact underlying representative government,”wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the court,“assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act on their concerns.”But the ruling reinforces the need for citizens and their elected representatives,not the courts,to ensure equality of access to government.Officials must not be allowed to play favorites in providing information or in arranging meetings simply because an individual or group provides a campaign donation or a personal gift.This type of integrity requires will-enforced laws in government transparency,such as records of official meetings,rules on lobbying,and information about each elected leader’s source of wealth.Favoritism in official access can fan public perceptions of corruption.But it is not always corruption.Rather officials must avoid double standards,or different types of access for average people and the wealthy.If connections can be bought,a basic premise of democratic society–that all are equal in treatment by government-is undermined.Good government rests on an understanding of the inherent worth of each individual.The court’s ruling is a step forward in the struggle against both corruption and official favoritism.The author’s attitude toward the court’s ruling is____A.sarcastic.B.tolerant.C.skeptical.D.supportive.
_____ the ruling came from the Supreme Court, a coalition of public sector unions in California was ready with a response.A、IfB、OnceC、SinceD、Unless
The government has been forced into a humiliating overhaul of employment tribunal fees after the supreme court ruled they were inconsistent with access to justice.The highest UK court came clown in favour of the trade union Unison,which argued that fees of up to$1,200 were preventing workers-especially those on lower incomes-from getting justice.Unison's general secretary,Dave Prentis,said it was a major victory for employees."Unprincipled employers no longer have the upper hand,"he said.The general secretary of the Trades Union Congress,Frances O'Grady,said:"This is a massive win for working people.Too many low-paid workers couldn't afford to uphold their rights at work,even when they have faced harassment or have been sacked unfairly.Tribunal fees have been a bonanza for bad bosses,giving them free rein to mistreat staff.Any fees paid so far should be refunded as soon as possible."Prof Nicole Busby,the acting head of the law school at the University of Strathclyde,said it was"a very good day for access to justice".Business leaders expressed concern about the court ruling.Seamus Nevin,head of employment and Skills Policy at the Institute of Directors,said the judgement"opens the door to a rise in unreasonable or malicious claims".He said:"Since fees were introduced,the government has imposed crude and potentially misleading gender pay reporting requirements,and an immigration skills charge that incentivises recruitment based on place of birth.Both of these could lead to an increase in unjustified claims."Mike Spicer,director of Research at the British Chambers of Commerce,said the ruling would leave"employers concerned about a return to the past,when despite winning the majority of cases,companies would often settle to avoid a costly and lengthy process even when their case was strong".Gillian Guy,the chief executive of Citizens Advice,said:"Employment tribunal fees have been a huge barrier to justice,but they are not the only challenge people face.What your rights are,and how to go about getting compensation without resorting to an employment tribunal remains a very complicated picture,which is why we're calling on the government to create a single fair work authority to make it easier for people to get the rights they're entitled to by clamping down on unlawful business practice."Shoaib Khan.a human rights lawyer,said:"The government has wasted precious public funcls on implementing this unlawful,discriminatory regime,and all fees it has received will have to be refunded,at further public cost.A large amount will also have been spent defending this case all the way to the supreme court.If this cruel scheme was meant to be an additional source of revenue for the government,then ir has proved to be counterproductive in every way."Tim Forer,a partner in the employment law team at the national law firm Blake Morgan,said estimates of how much the government owed ranged from 27m t0 31m.He said the praciicalities of how the government planned to refund people"remain to be seen,and it is nor clear how much it witl cost".Mike Spicer pointed out thatA.employers no longer had an advantage over employeesB.the ruling could bring about an increase in unjustified laimsC.employment tribunal fees prevented many workers on lower incomes from defending their rights in the workplace.D.out that the apprenticeship levy did not work well and would deter the government from hitting its 2020 apprenticeship target.E.believed that apprentices were being treated as cheap labour and not getting quality training on the job.F.indicated that increased levy flexibility was vital for businesses to fund a wider range of training.G.companies would tend to settle to avoid going to court like they used to do.
Text 3 In 2010,a federal judge shook America's biotech industry to its core.Companies had won patents for isolated DNA for decades—by 2005 some 20%of human genes were patented.But in March 2012 a judge ruled that genes were unpatentable.Executives were violently agitated.The Biotechnology Industry Organization（BIO）,a trade group,assured members that this was just a“preliminary step”in a longer battle.On July 29th they were relieved,at least temporarily.A federal appeals court overturned the prior decision,ruling that Myriad Genetics could indeed hold patents to two genes that help forecast a woman's risk of breast cancer.The chief executive of Myriad,a company in Utah,said the ruling was a blessing to firms and patients alike.But as companies continue their attempts at personalized medicine,the courts will remain rather busy.The Myriad case itself is probably not over.Critics make three main arguments against gene patents:a gene is a product of nature,so it may not be patented;gene patents suppress innovation rather than reward it;and patents’monopolies restrict access to genetic tests such as Myriad's.A growing number seem to agree.Last year a federal taskforce urged reform for patents related to genetic tests.In October the Department of Justice filed a brief in the Myriad case,arguing that an isolated DNA molecule“is no less a product of nature…than are cotton fibres that have been separated from cotton seeds.”Despite the appeals court's decision,big questions remain unanswered.For example,it is unclear whether the sequencing of a whole genome violates the patents of individual genes within it.The case may yet reach the Supreme Court.As the industry advances,however,other suits may have an even greater impact.Companies are unlikely to file many more patents for human DNA molecules—most are unlikely patented or in the public domain.Firms are now studying how genes interact,looking for correlations that might be used to determine the causes of disease or predict a drug's efficacy.Companies are eager to win patents for“connecting the dots，”explains Hans Sauer,a lawyers for the BIO.Their success may be determined by a suit related to this issue,brought by the Mayo Clinic,which the Supreme Court will hear in its next term.The BIO recently held a convention which included sessions to coach lawyers on the shifting landscape for patents.Each meeting was packed.By saying“Each meeting was packed”（Line 4，Para.6）,the author means that_____A.the supreme court was authoritativeB.the BIO was a powerful organizationC.gene patenting was a great concernD.lawyers were keen to attend conventions
In Australia， the Constitution can be changed only by ( ) A.referendum B.British Queen C.the Prime Minister D.the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in（）Aall kinds of casesBtwo kinds of casesCcases involving foreign citizensDcases involving a state
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court（）Ahas much greater power than other justices of the Supreme CourtBhas no greater voting power than other justices of the Supreme CourtChas greater say in deciding a caseDhas greater voting power than other justices of the Supreme Court
In Ireland（）is the court of final appeal and plays a key role in the interpretation of the Constitution.Athe Supreme CourtBthe High CourtCthe Highest CourtDthe Central Court
The federal judicial system consists of （）Aone supreme court,11 courts of appeals and 91 district courtsBone supreme court,11 courts of appeals,89 district courts,3 courts of special jurisdictionCone supreme court,11 courts of appeals,91 district courts,3 courts of special jurisdictionDone supreme court,11 courts of appeals,91 district courts,2 courts for the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
In Ireland（）is the court of final appeal and plays a key role in the interpretation of the Constitution.A、the Supreme CourtB、the High CourtC、the Highest CourtD、the Central Court
单选题From the first three paragraphs, we learn that ______.Adoctors used to increase drug dosages to control their patients’ painBit is still illegal for doctors to help the dying end their livesCthe Supreme Court strongly opposes physician-assisted suicideDpatients have no constitutional right to commit suicide
单选题_____ has the power to impeach the President of the United States when he abuses his power.AThe SenateBThe Justice of the Supreme CourtCThe CongressDThe Supreme Court
单选题The federal judicial system consists of （）Aone supreme court,11 courts of appeals and 91 district courtsBone supreme court,11 courts of appeals,89 district courts,3 courts of special jurisdictionCone supreme court,11 courts of appeals,91 district courts,3 courts of special jurisdictionDone supreme court,11 courts of appeals,91 district courts,2 courts for the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
单选题In Ireland（）is the court of final appeal and plays a key role in the interpretation of the Constitution.Athe Supreme CourtBthe High CourtCthe Highest CourtDthe Central Court
单选题The first state court to rule that gays had a constitutional right to wed was ______.Athe Maryland’s Supreme CourtBthe Massachusetts’ Supreme CourtCthe New Mexico’s Supreme CourtDthe New Jersey’s Supreme Court
单选题According to the United States Constitution, the legislative power is invested in _____.AThe Federal Government.BThe Supreme Court.CThe Cabinet.DThe Congress.
单选题The real power of the House of Lords lies in _____.Ahelping to pass Money BillsBdelaying billsCdiscussing billsDbeing Supreme Court