(4 points)

Question

True False
Judicial activism involves judges interpreting the law broadly and sometimes making decisions that expand judicial power.

The Senate nominates federal judges, and the President approves them.

The Supreme Court reigns supreme with both original and appellate jurisdiction, while federal courts handle cases involving federal law or disputes between citizens of different states.

Judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison, says that the Supreme Court could declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.

Answer 1

Here are the statements evaluated as True or False:

1. Judicial activism involves judges interpreting the law broadly and sometimes making decisions that expand judicial power.
   True - Judicial activism is often characterized by the principle of interpreting the law in a way that can create broader implications for rights and policies, potentially expanding judicial power.

2. The Senate nominates federal judges, and the President approves them.
   False - It is actually the President who nominates federal judges, and the Senate approves them.

3. The Supreme Court reigns supreme with both original and appellate jurisdiction, while federal courts handle cases involving federal law or disputes between citizens of different states.
   True - The Supreme Court has both original jurisdiction (in a limited number of cases) and appellate jurisdiction, while federal courts handle cases involving federal laws and diversity cases between citizens of different states.

4. Judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison, says that the Supreme Court could declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.
   True - Judicial review, established by the landmark case Marbury v. Madison, gives the Supreme Court the power to declare laws and acts of Congress unconstitutional.

So, the final evaluations are:

1. True
2. False
3. True
4. True