Want this question answered?
The noun clause is 'what happened next' which is functioning as the object of the preposition 'at'.
The judge can't be too careful when writing his verdict I guess.
The noun clause is 'what happened next'. The relative pronoun 'what' is taking the place of a noun; the clause 'what happened next' is the object of the preposition 'at'.
I don't believe the Morals Clause holds anymore weight than anything else. It will depend on the Judge and the details of why you are seeking the clause. Unfortunately, the courts are given "discretion" to rule however they see fit. If you happen to have a conservative Judge, chances are higher than if you were to have a liberal Judge. That, of course, is my own opinion.
Any judge that breaks the law.
The bailiff announced that the judge was entering the room.
A judge, who happens to be a female, is still a 'judge' a modern term that is gender neutral.
I believe the question refers to a judge who happens to sit on the bench of a Superior Court - hence a Superior Court Judge.
This article: http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/1996.article sheds some light. Judge for yourself on this one. It's not enough for a definite answer, but might give an indication.
The noun clause, "whatever you tell me" is not a complete sentence. Without the rest of the sentence, we don't know how it's functioning in the sentence.Some examples are:Whatever you tell me is our secret. (the clause is the subject of the sentence)I won't judge you for whatever you tell me. (the clause is the object of the preposition 'for')
Yes, military law, as is civilian law, is 'blind' as to who it is that is sitting in judgment (e.g.: A judge is a judge is a judge - and a commander is a commander is a commander).
Either until they are impeached, retire, or die