Questions: Question 16 (1 point) The lawyer who represents the federal government and argues cases before the Supreme Court is the A. B. C. D. attorney general solicitor general U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court Question 17 (1 point) When using judicial restraint, a judge will usually refuse to rule on a case overrule any act of Congress he or she doesn't like defer to the decisions of the elected branches of government make mostly liberal rulings

The answer to Question 16 is: solicitor general

The Attorney General is the head of the U.S. Department of Justice and the chief law enforcement officer of the federal government. While the Attorney General has a significant role in legal matters, they do not typically argue cases before the Supreme Court.

The Solicitor General is the federal government's primary representative in the Supreme Court. This official is responsible for arguing cases before the Court and determining the legal position that the United States will take in the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia is responsible for prosecuting federal crimes in the District of Columbia, but does not represent the federal government in the Supreme Court.

The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presides over the Court's proceedings but does not represent the federal government in legal arguments.

The answer to Question 17 is: defer to the decisions of the elected branches of government

Judicial restraint does not mean refusing to rule on cases. Judges practicing judicial restraint will still make rulings but will do so with caution and deference to existing laws and precedents.

This option is more aligned with judicial activism, where judges may be more willing to overturn legislative actions. Judicial restraint, on the other hand, involves upholding acts of Congress unless they clearly violate the Constitution.

Judicial restraint emphasizes respecting the roles of the legislative and executive branches, deferring to their decisions unless there is a clear constitutional violation. This approach is based on the belief that elected officials are better suited to make policy decisions.

Judicial restraint is not inherently liberal or conservative. It is a philosophy about the role of the judiciary in interpreting the law, focusing on upholding existing laws and precedents rather than making new interpretations.