Иностранный язык в профессиональной деятельности.фл_ДСИ_гп_уп(2)(4)

Скачать тест — (Иностранный язык в профессиональной деятельности.ф_68d5fa59.pdf)

I wanted a purple bike but they only had ____.
____ go to school on the 1st of September.
He goes to work ____ taxi.
I don’t work ____ Mondays.
Choose the only correct answer: _____________________.
He arrived ____ airport just in time.
Simon ____ in Madrid since 1982.
I ____ him at 7 tonight.
Mark ____ fly to London tomorrow.
Oh, I completely forgot! ____ it right now.
____ have you been waiting?
____ is it from Barcelona to Madrid?
Choose the only correct answer: _____________________?
The kitchen can’t be dirty, he ____ it.
I haven’t seen him ____ we left school.
Has Mr. Brown arrived ____ ?
Don’t start ____!
I have to go to the bank ____ some money.
If you want to keep fit, you ____ go to the gym.
Anyone ____ make a mistake.
You ____ beat girls!
This is ____ picture I’ve ever seen.
The weather is getting ____.
I’ve lost my keys. I can’t find them ____.
We can’t get there by 3:00 pm. There is ____ time
There ____ spectators at the match.
____ of you can speak Japanese?
Wild goats are more dangerous than wild ____.
We are having a party ____ the weekend.
It was ____ big house.
I invited Mary out for a meal, but unfortunately she ____ dinner.
They ____ you.
She ____ the car and now she is dirty.
All the money ____ from my wallet.
Many houses ____ in our city every year.
If I won a lottery, I ____ a house in the country.
If I ____ you, I’d take the risk.
Choose the only correct answer: _____________________
Peter is ____ Jane to do it at this very moment.
I thought you ____.
They weren’t surprised and nor ____ I.
He works at the theatre, ____?
I ____ work at night when I was young.
I have to catch the 5:00 am train tomorrow, so I ____ go to bed late.
She ____ go to the dentist’s yesterday.
‘These cases look heavy. ‘____ carry one for you?’ ‘That’s very nice of you.’
You look tired. You ____ go to bed.
This glass is dirty. Can you give me ____ one.
____ of the people we met were friendly.
He’s looking forward ____ that film.
Would you like ____ for a walk?
Find a suitable word or collocation for each definition.
Find a suitable word or collocation for each definition
Find a suitable word or collocation for each definition
The English word “law” _________ to limits upon various forms of behaviour.
Laws _________ how people ought to behave.
Law essentially _________ two functions in modern society.
Law of a country may be analyzed as a _________ of rules.
Case Law arises out of disputes and may be found in the _________ of courts.
_________ is one of the greatest systems that has ever existed.
Court decision will become a new _________ for courts to follow in the future.
Where there is no system of Case Law the work of the judge is _________ new rules of law.
Case Law is much richer in _________ than any code of law.
_________ rules are the product of difficulties which arise in everyday life.
Read the text There are many different kinds of crimes, for example _________which means taking somebody away. When this happens, criminals demand a _________ for their return. It is a particularly serious _________. The police often offer a _________, which is sometimes quite a substantial sum of money. They give money for information leading to the _________ of a criminal. It is not always easy for a _________ to decide whether a suspect is guilty or not. The _________ of a suspect often takes days, or even weeks. Having decided on their verdict, the jury do not, however, have to decide how long a_________ to give. That is the job of the _________. Choose the only correct answer There are many different kinds of crimes, for example _________ which means taking somebody away.
Read the text There are many different kinds of crimes, for example _________which means taking somebody away. When this happens, criminals demand a _________ for their return. It is a particularly serious _________. The police often offer a _________, which is sometimes quite a substantial sum of money. They give money for information leading to the _________ of a criminal. It is not always easy for a _________ to decide whether a suspect is guilty or not. The _________ of a suspect often takes days, or even weeks. Having decided on their verdict, the jury do not, however, have to decide how long a_________ to give. That is the job of the _________. Choose the only correct answer When this happens, criminals demand a _________ for their return.
Read the text There are many different kinds of crimes, for example _________which means taking somebody away. When this happens, criminals demand a _________ for their return. It is a particularly serious _________. The police often offer a _________, which is sometimes quite a substantial sum of money. They give money for information leading to the _________ of a criminal. It is not always easy for a _________ to decide whether a suspect is guilty or not. The _________ of a suspect often takes days, or even weeks. Having decided on their verdict, the jury do not, however, have to decide how long a_________ to give. That is the job of the _________. Choose the only correct answer It is a particularly serious _________.
Read the text There are many different kinds of crimes, for example _________which means taking somebody away. When this happens, criminals demand a _________ for their return. It is a particularly serious _________. The police often offer a _________, which is sometimes quite a substantial sum of money. They give money for information leading to the _________ of a criminal. It is not always easy for a _________ to decide whether a suspect is guilty or not. The _________ of a suspect often takes days, or even weeks. Having decided on their verdict, the jury do not, however, have to decide how long a_________ to give. That is the job of the _________. Choose the only correct answer The police often offer a _________, which is sometimes quite a substantial sum of money.
Read the text There are many different kinds of crimes, for example _________which means taking somebody away. When this happens, criminals demand a _________ for their return. It is a particularly serious _________. The police often offer a _________, which is sometimes quite a substantial sum of money. They give money for information leading to the _________ of a criminal. It is not always easy for a _________ to decide whether a suspect is guilty or not. The _________ of a suspect often takes days, or even weeks. Having decided on their verdict, the jury do not, however, have to decide how long a_________ to give. That is the job of the _________. Choose the only correct answer They give money for information leading to the _________ of a criminal.
Read the text There are many different kinds of crimes, for example _________which means taking somebody away. When this happens, criminals demand a _________ for their return. It is a particularly serious _________. The police often offer a _________, which is sometimes quite a substantial sum of money. They give money for information leading to the _________ of a criminal. It is not always easy for a _________ to decide whether a suspect is guilty or not. The _________ of a suspect often takes days, or even weeks. Having decided on their verdict, the jury do not, however, have to decide how long a_________ to give. That is the job of the _________. Choose the only correct answer It is not always easy for a _________ to decide whether a suspect is guilty or not.
Read the text There are many different kinds of crimes, for example _________which means taking somebody away. When this happens, criminals demand a _________ for their return. It is a particularly serious _________. The police often offer a _________, which is sometimes quite a substantial sum of money. They give money for information leading to the _________ of a criminal. It is not always easy for a _________ to decide whether a suspect is guilty or not. The _________ of a suspect often takes days, or even weeks. Having decided on their verdict, the jury do not, however, have to decide how long a_________ to give. That is the job of the _________. Choose the only correct answer The _________ of a suspect often takes days, or even weeks.
Read the text There are many different kinds of crimes, for example _________which means taking somebody away. When this happens, criminals demand a _________ for their return. It is a particularly serious _________. The police often offer a _________, which is sometimes quite a substantial sum of money. They give money for information leading to the _________ of a criminal. It is not always easy for a _________ to decide whether a suspect is guilty or not. The _________ of a suspect often takes days, or even weeks. Having decided on their verdict, the jury do not, however, have to decide how long a_________ to give. That is the job of the _________. Choose the only correct answer Having decided on their verdict, the jury do not, however, have to decide how long a _________ to give.
Read the text There are many different kinds of crimes, for example _________which means taking somebody away. When this happens, criminals demand a _________ for their return. It is a particularly serious _________. The police often offer a _________, which is sometimes quite a substantial sum of money. They give money for information leading to the _________ of a criminal. It is not always easy for a _________ to decide whether a suspect is guilty or not. The _________ of a suspect often takes days, or even weeks. Having decided on their verdict, the jury do not, however, have to decide how long a_________ to give. That is the job of the _________. Choose the only correct answer That is the job of the _________.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
Choose the only correct answer England is almost unique in having two different kinds of __________.
If a person has a legal problem he will go to a ________.
In a civil action solicitors have the right to speak in _________.
_________ is a governing body of barristers.
Barristers are experts in … of the Law.
_________ is expected to appear only in the most important legal matters.
The judges _________ new laws.
Magistrates are _________ by special committees.
All federal judges hold office during _________.
Judges in the United States initially come to the bench after a _________ of professional experience.
Choose the only correct translation of the word given Libel
Defendant
Judge
Prosecutor
Legal adviser
Barrister
Arbitrator
Court