i dont understand these questions...can u help?

Question

Although Supreme court decisions cantain much discussion of political theory, philosophy, law, and policy, it can be argued that the court is primarily a practical body-that is, it uses practical guidlines for hearing each case. What evidence could you use to support this statement?

....the problem is i dont understand what the statement is saying

Answer 1

its saying the courts have to be based on facts for an outcome and they have to completly follow a set of rules,supreme court creates new laws,and sometime has to do it from speculation or deductive reasoning(some of which can be flawed)

Answer 2

Evidence to support the contention that the Supreme Court is primarily a practical body is through analysis of the guidelines issued by the clerk of the Supreme Court for counsel in cases to be argued before the supreme court. This is emminently a document define practical matters, and not one having a purvue with that of pragmatism.

The former being wholly concerned with procedure, and decorum, while the latter being wholly focused on facts and details of occurence. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court does not inherently deal with pragmatics, but with issues whereby procedural misconduct or errors occured with respect to the hearing of cases, or that of the constitutionality of laws for which conviction was rendered.

To address the answer with respect to the Supreme Court making new laws, this is blatently false, and patently unconstitutional. The authority to legislate (create law) is utterly within the purvue of the legislative body of the nation and several sovereign states, i.e., the Congress. Legislating from the bench is pure evil and is not an aspect of the republic that is defined within the documents that defines, and limits the scope and powers of the government...