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.
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____
The author’s attitude toward the court’s ruling is____
A.sarcastic.
B.tolerant.
C.skeptical.
D.supportive.
B.tolerant.
C.skeptical.
D.supportive.
参考解析
解析：态度题。根据题干可知这是一个态度题，而且题干有具体细节，所以可以按照细节题的方法做。所以根据题干的the court ruling以及题目出现的顺序，定位到文章的最后一段，这里只有一句话，说的是“The court’s ruling is a step forward…”，说是“往前进了一步”，所以是正向概念，故D选项为正确答案。
相关考题：
His first attempt failed,(). A、his second attenpt did eitherB、so did his second attenptC、# neither did his second attenptD、so his second attenpt did
Not only () us to his home,but also()us with his amusing experience abroa. A、did he invite,entertainedB、did he invite,he entertainedC、he invited,entertainedD、he invited,he entertained
Jack ____________ in the fight. A.had his nose brokenB.had his nose breakC.had his nose breakingD.had his nose broke
France has kept intimate links with its former African territories.A:friendly B:private C:strong D:secret
Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its "one-click"online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bil-ski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D．Crouch of the University of Mis-souri School of law. It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski ease involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should "reconsider" its State Street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are "reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court," says Harold C． Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.The word "about-face" (Paragraph 3) most probably meansA.loss of good willB.increase of hostilityC.change of attitudeD.enhancement of dignity
Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its "one-click"online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bil-ski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D．Crouch of the University of Mis-souri School of law. It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski ease involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should "reconsider" its State Street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are "reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court," says Harold C． Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.Which of the following is true of the Bilski case?A.Its ruling complies with the court decisions.B.It involves a very big business transaction.C.It has been dismissed by the Federal Circuit.D.It may change the legal practices in the U.S.
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.According to Paragraph 4,an official act is deemed corruptive only if it involves____A.concrete returns for gift-givers.B.sizable gains in the form of gifts.C.leaking secrets intentionally.D.breaking contracts officially.
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.
A businessman who has launched a legal bid to remove some search results about his criminal conviction in the first"right to be forgotten"case in the English courts should not be allowed to rewrite history,lawyers for Google have said The claimant,referred to only as NTI f tor legal reasons,was convicted of conspiracy to account falsely in the late 1990s and wants google to remove results that mention his case,including web pages published by a national newspaper.Representing NTl,Hugh Tomlinson QC,chairman of the press regulation campaign Hacked Off,told the high court that the presence of the articles caused"distress and upset”.In 2014 the European Union's court of justice ruled that"irrelevant'"and outdated data should be erased on request.Since then,Google has received requests to remove at least 2.4m links from search results.Search engines can reject applications if they believe the public interest in accessing the information outweighs a right to privacy But Antony White QC,representing Google,said the right to be forgotten"ruling was"not a right to rewrite history or.tailor your past if that's what this claimant would like to use it for".White said the business malpractice that gave rise to NTl's conviction was"serious and sustained".White told the court the businessman had portrayed himself as a"respected businessman"with a successful career on social media and in a series of blog posts,on a blog containing information about his business and financial background.The posts create a"false picture"and if his right to be forgotten claim succeeds he would continue to“mislead”Tomlinson told the court the businessman was not a public figure and now made a living on commercial lending and funding a property developer.Before anyone meets a new person these days they Google them,"Tomlinson told the court.He said"many people engage in misdeeds when they are young or in the past"and if the misdeeds are"constantly brought to the attention of others then they will permanently have a negative effect".The conviction is now spent,Tomlinson said,and the law is designed to allow for the rehabilitation of offenders so they can go on to lead normal lives The high court case,which is expected to last five days,will be monitored by convicted criminals and others who want embarrassing stories erased from the web Google's refusal to erase two links to newspaper articles referencing the businessman's conviction led to Tuesday's hearing.The businessman who is represented by the law firm Carter-Ruck,gave evidence to the court on Tuesday about the founding of the controversial property company which he had an interest in.The company was subject to a regulatory sanction before being wound upWhich of the following statements can be inferred from Tomlinson's statements?A.The life of public figures will be greatly disturbed if they can be"Googled"by othersB.The online data of one's misdeeds will deprive their opportunity of life redemptionC.The public may be misled if the online results of one's previous misdeeds are erasedD.The businessman should reflect his past misconduct and live a normal life
A businessman who has launched a legal bid to remove some search results about his criminal conviction in the first"right to be forgotten"case in the English courts should not be allowed to rewrite history,lawyers for Google have said The claimant,referred to only as NTI f tor legal reasons,was convicted of conspiracy to account falsely in the late 1990s and wants google to remove results that mention his case,including web pages published by a national newspaper.Representing NTl,Hugh Tomlinson QC,chairman of the press regulation campaign Hacked Off,told the high court that the presence of the articles caused"distress and upset”.In 2014 the European Union's court of justice ruled that"irrelevant'"and outdated data should be erased on request.Since then,Google has received requests to remove at least 2.4m links from search results.Search engines can reject applications if they believe the public interest in accessing the information outweighs a right to privacy But Antony White QC,representing Google,said the right to be forgotten"ruling was"not a right to rewrite history or.tailor your past if that's what this claimant would like to use it for".White said the business malpractice that gave rise to NTl's conviction was"serious and sustained".White told the court the businessman had portrayed himself as a"respected businessman"with a successful career on social media and in a series of blog posts,on a blog containing information about his business and financial background.The posts create a"false picture"and if his right to be forgotten claim succeeds he would continue to“mislead”Tomlinson told the court the businessman was not a public figure and now made a living on commercial lending and funding a property developer.Before anyone meets a new person these days they Google them,"Tomlinson told the court.He said"many people engage in misdeeds when they are young or in the past"and if the misdeeds are"constantly brought to the attention of others then they will permanently have a negative effect".The conviction is now spent,Tomlinson said,and the law is designed to allow for the rehabilitation of offenders so they can go on to lead normal lives The high court case,which is expected to last five days,will be monitored by convicted criminals and others who want embarrassing stories erased from the web Google's refusal to erase two links to newspaper articles referencing the businessman's conviction led to Tuesday's hearing.The businessman who is represented by the law firm Carter-Ruck,gave evidence to the court on Tuesday about the founding of the controversial property company which he had an interest in.The company was subject to a regulatory sanction before being wound upAccording to Paragraph 3,the legal request of date will be rejected ifA.the data are not really irrelevantB.too many people apply for itC.the data concern others'interestsD.the data enjoys high public popularity
A businessman who has launched a legal bid to remove some search results about his criminal conviction in the first"right to be forgotten"case in the English courts should not be allowed to rewrite history,lawyers for Google have said The claimant,referred to only as NTI f tor legal reasons,was convicted of conspiracy to account falsely in the late 1990s and wants google to remove results that mention his case,including web pages published by a national newspaper.Representing NTl,Hugh Tomlinson QC,chairman of the press regulation campaign Hacked Off,told the high court that the presence of the articles caused"distress and upset”.In 2014 the European Union's court of justice ruled that"irrelevant'"and outdated data should be erased on request.Since then,Google has received requests to remove at least 2.4m links from search results.Search engines can reject applications if they believe the public interest in accessing the information outweighs a right to privacy But Antony White QC,representing Google,said the right to be forgotten"ruling was"not a right to rewrite history or.tailor your past if that's what this claimant would like to use it for".White said the business malpractice that gave rise to NTl's conviction was"serious and sustained".White told the court the businessman had portrayed himself as a"respected businessman"with a successful career on social media and in a series of blog posts,on a blog containing information about his business and financial background.The posts create a"false picture"and if his right to be forgotten claim succeeds he would continue to“mislead”Tomlinson told the court the businessman was not a public figure and now made a living on commercial lending and funding a property developer.Before anyone meets a new person these days they Google them,"Tomlinson told the court.He said"many people engage in misdeeds when they are young or in the past"and if the misdeeds are"constantly brought to the attention of others then they will permanently have a negative effect".The conviction is now spent,Tomlinson said,and the law is designed to allow for the rehabilitation of offenders so they can go on to lead normal lives The high court case,which is expected to last five days,will be monitored by convicted criminals and others who want embarrassing stories erased from the web Google's refusal to erase two links to newspaper articles referencing the businessman's conviction led to Tuesday's hearing.The businessman who is represented by the law firm Carter-Ruck,gave evidence to the court on Tuesday about the founding of the controversial property company which he had an interest in.The company was subject to a regulatory sanction before being wound upWhat will be Google's reaction to the businessman's legal bid?A.Deleting the relevant informationB.Rejecting the businessman's requestC.Reconfirming the truth of the caseD.Seeking help from the court
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 court’s ruling is d on the assumption that public officials are__A.allowed to focus on the concerns of their supporters.B.qualified to deal independently with bureaucratic issues.C.justified in addressing the needs of their constituents.D.exempt from conviction on the charge of favoritism.
A businessman who has launched a legal bid to remove some search results about his criminal conviction in the first"right to be forgotten"case in the English courts should not be allowed to rewrite history,lawyers for Google have said The claimant,referred to only as NTI f tor legal reasons,was convicted of conspiracy to account falsely in the late 1990s and wants google to remove results that mention his case,including web pages published by a national newspaper.Representing NTl,Hugh Tomlinson QC,chairman of the press regulation campaign Hacked Off,told the high court that the presence of the articles caused"distress and upset”.In 2014 the European Union's court of justice ruled that"irrelevant'"and outdated data should be erased on request.Since then,Google has received requests to remove at least 2.4m links from search results.Search engines can reject applications if they believe the public interest in accessing the information outweighs a right to privacy But Antony White QC,representing Google,said the right to be forgotten"ruling was"not a right to rewrite history or.tailor your past if that's what this claimant would like to use it for".White said the business malpractice that gave rise to NTl's conviction was"serious and sustained".White told the court the businessman had portrayed himself as a"respected businessman"with a successful career on social media and in a series of blog posts,on a blog containing information about his business and financial background.The posts create a"false picture"and if his right to be forgotten claim succeeds he would continue to“mislead”Tomlinson told the court the businessman was not a public figure and now made a living on commercial lending and funding a property developer.Before anyone meets a new person these days they Google them,"Tomlinson told the court.He said"many people engage in misdeeds when they are young or in the past"and if the misdeeds are"constantly brought to the attention of others then they will permanently have a negative effect".The conviction is now spent,Tomlinson said,and the law is designed to allow for the rehabilitation of offenders so they can go on to lead normal lives The high court case,which is expected to last five days,will be monitored by convicted criminals and others who want embarrassing stories erased from the web Google's refusal to erase two links to newspaper articles referencing the businessman's conviction led to Tuesday's hearing.The businessman who is represented by the law firm Carter-Ruck,gave evidence to the court on Tuesday about the founding of the controversial property company which he had an interest in.The company was subject to a regulatory sanction before being wound upWhy did the businessman want Google to remove the search results about his past conviction?A.Because he wanted to rewrite the historyB.Because Google greatly distorted the factsC.Because he suffered much from links to outdated dataD.Because the search results greatly influenced his career
_____ 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
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
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
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
Did you have a neighbor who was always（）your business?AdoingBmaking itCgetting above.Dpoking his nose into
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court（）A、has much greater power than other justices of the Supreme CourtB、has no greater voting power than other justices of the Supreme CourtC、has greater say in deciding a caseD、has greater voting power than other justices of the Supreme Court
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Did you have a neighbor who was always（）your business?AdoingBmaking itCgetting above.Dpoking his nose into
单选题The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in（）Aall kinds of casesBtwo kinds of casesCcases involving foreign citizensDcases involving a state
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 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