That is a personal call only you can make.
If federal judges are elected, there can be less partisanship - if they are appointed, the politician appointing them will likely choose judges who agree with them politically.
No. He does not decide who wins cases. Under the constitution the judiciary is a separate branch of government. He can change the makeup of the court by appointing judges that agree with his views. By doing the federal court and Supreme Court decisions will influence the cases that they hear.
A president is more likely to appoint judges who would agree with him ideologically, and therefore, would be opposed by his ideological rivals in the Senate.
False, economists do not all agree that predatory pricing exists and is a common practice.
HjfjfnfnrnrheuurhrbffnfnjfjfjrnrnYes i agree
The Executive branch gets to choose candidates for federal judgeships, including Supreme Court Justices. The President also has the power to pardon people convicted of federal offenses, Since the President controls the Department of Justice, he has some leeway in how laws are enforced.
I would agree that the answer is probably yes.
federal aid
It is called a per curiam opinion. The judges remain anonymous because a majority if not all of the judges agree on the ruling and not one single judge/minority is writing the opinion.
He practice the worship of monotheism, the practice or worship of only one god.
once and all Judges must agree
b. Senators have increased their ability to select lower court judges who will operate in their state.c. The tradition of "senatorial courtesy" has disappeared completely.d. The confirmation of lower court judges has become more hotly contested.e. The Senate and presidency have come to agree that partisan factors should not intrude on judicial concerns, and that nominees should be judged solely based on their qualifications.