The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in（）

A . pretend B . extend C . contend D . intend

A . 1529 B . 1534 C . 1535 D . 1547

A . are B . is C . have D . ha

A . has much greater power than other justices of the Supreme Court B . has no greater voting power than other justices of the Supreme Court C . has greater say in deciding a case D . has greater voting power than other justices of the Supreme Court

In 1997, the High Court in London found that environmental campaigners Helen Steel, aged 34, and Dave Morris, 44, were guilty of distributing a pamphlet containing allegations against McDonald’s and their fast food and its preparation. The trial lasted three years and brought to light much evidence about the way McDonald’s hamburger chain workers prepared, handled and served food, and the treatment of these workers by the American-owned company. The High Court in London awarded McDonald’s damages of 60,000 pounds (RMB 780,000) against the two penniless campaigners. But in 1999, three Appeal Court Judges in London decided that the two defendants found guilty of libel against McDonald’s in 1997 would have the damages they have to pay to McDonald’s reduced to 40,000 pounds (RMB 520,000). While upholding the libel ruling, the judges backed the defendants' claim the food carries health risks and said allegations McDonald’s workers suffer poor pay and conditions are "fair comment". The judges also backed a claim by the defendants that eating the company’s hamburgers can cause heart disease. The claim that "if one eats enough McDonald’s food, one’s diet may well become high in fat..., with the very real risk of heart disease, is justified," said Lord Justice Pill, who was sitting in the Court of Appeal with Lord Justice May and Justice Keene. The appeal decision is likely to be a further embarrassment to McDonald’s, whose three-year action against environmental campaigners Helen Steel and Dave Morris generated extensive negative publicity. Peter Backman, chief executive of Food Service Intelligence, a research group, said: " McDonald’s is very conscious of what people say about them. They have got where they have by listening to consumers. I think their strategy will be to downplay the ruling, refute the comments, and thirdly, to do something about it." McDonald’s said it welcomed the Court of Appeal decision to uphold the 1997 libel ruling. The company faces another $200,000 legal bill for the 23-day appeal hearing. Steel and Morris were to take the case to the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights to appeal against the damages awarded against them. They present much of their cases themselves and any lawyer’s fees are largely paid for by donations. The pair have yet to win court backing for claims that McDonald’s damages the environment, or that there are links between its hamburgers, cancer and food poisoning. The fast-food chain has not yet recovered a penny of its original libel award from the defendants, who are refusing to hand over any money. One benefit of the long trial was that A．McDonald’s become more famous after that. B．people knew a lot about the food processing in McDonald’s. C．the way McDonald’s treated its workers has been improved. D．the government got a sum of money from it.

A．Reviews the legality of acts of the Commission and the Council. B．Oversees long-term investment. C．Monitors the revenues and expenditures of the EU. D．Advises the Commission and the Council on general economic policy.

A．author B．authority C．authorizing D．authoritative

By opting not to take the case, the high court effectively endorsed a lower court's decision that a Colorado company that posts ratings of health plans on the Internet could be sued for defamation in a Washington court. The lower court ruling is one of several that makes it easier for plaintiffs to sue Web site operators in their own jurisdictions, rather than where the operators maintain a physical presence. The case involved a defamation suit filed by Chehalis, Wash.-based Northwest Healthcare Alliance against Lakewood, Colo.-based Healthgrades.com The Alliance sued in Washington federal court after Healthgrades.com posted a negative ranking of Northwest Healthcare's home health services on the Internet. Healthgrades.com argued that it should not be subject to the jurisdiction of a court in Washington because its publishing operation is in Colorado. Observers said the fact that the Supreme Court opted not to hear the case only clouds the legal situation for Web site operators. Geoff Stewart, a partner at Jones Day in Washington, D.C., said that the Supreme Court eventually must act on the issue, as Internet sites that rate everything from automobile dealerships to credit offers could scale back their offerings to avoid lawsuits originating numerous jurisdictions. Online publishers also might have to worry about being dragged into lawsuits in foreign courts, said Dow Lohnes & Albertson attorney Jon Hart, who has represented the Online News Association. "The much more difficult problems for U.S. media companies arise when claims are brought in foreign countries over content published in the United States", Hart said. Hart cited a recent case in which an Australian court ruled that Dow Jones must appear in a Victoria, Australia court to defend its publication of an article on the U.S.—based Walt Street Journal Web site. According to Hart, the potential chilling effect of those sorts of jurisdictional decisions is substantial. "I have not yet seen publishers holding back on what they otherwise publish because they're afraid they're going to get sued in another country, but that doesn't mean it won't happen if we see a rash of U.S. libel cases against U.S. media companies being brought in foreign countries", he said. Until the high court decides to weigh in directly on this issue, Web site operators that offer information and services to users located outside of their home states must deal with a thorny legal landscape, said John Morgan, a partner at Perkins Coie LLP and an expert in Internet law. The author seems to believe that the Supreme Court's decision ______. A．can cause operators to issue balanced health plan ratings. B．renders correct legal decisions in other cases impossible. C．might put Web site operators at a legal disadvantage. D．brings about a series of debates on Internet operations.

A．search for suspects" mobile phones without a warrant. B．check suspects" phone contents without being authorized. C．prevent suspects from deleting their phone contents. D．prohibit suspects from using their mobile phones.

A) might cause greater scarcity of farm products B) didn’t give the Secretary of Agriculture enough power C) would benefit neither the government nor the farmers D) benefited one group of citizens at the expense of others

Which of the following statements is true？ A．The Microsoft will be broken up into separate companies. B．A lower court order that the giant US computer software company Microsoft not be broken up into separate companies. C．A federal appeals court order that the giant US computer software company Microsoft be broken up into separate companies. D．A federal appeals court has overturned a lower court order that the giant US computer software company Microsoft not be broken up into separate companies.

The two women in this case were eyewitnesses. They clearly saw the man who attacked them, yet they mistakenly identified an innocent person. Similar incidents have occurred before. Eyewitnesses to other crimes have identified the wrong person in a police lineup or in photographs. Many factors influence the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. For instance, witnesses sometimes see photographs of several suspects before they try to identify the person they saw in a lineup of people. They can become confused by seeing many photographs or similar faces. The number of people in the lineup, and whether it is a live lineup or a photograph, may also affect a witnesses decision. People sometimes have difficulty in identifying people of other races. The questions the police ask witnesses also have an effect on them. Are some witnesses more reliable than others？ Many people believe that police officers are more reliable than ordinary people. Psychologists decided to test this idea, and they discovered that it is not true. Two psychologists showed a film of crimes to both police officers and civilians. The psychologists found no difference between the police and the civilians in correctly remembering the details of the crimes. Despite all the possibilities for inaccuracy, courts cannot exclude eyewitness testimony from a trial. American courts depend almost completely on eyewitness testimony to resolve court cases. Sometimes it is the only evidence to a crime, such as rape. Furthermore, eyewitness testimony is often correct. Although people do sometimes make mistakes, many times they really do identify individuals correctly. American courts depend on the ability of the 12 jurors, and not the judges, to determine the accuracy of the witnesses testimony. It is their responsibility to decide if a certain witness could actually see, hear, and remember what occurred. In a few cases, the testimony of eyewitnesses has convicted innocent people. More importantly, it has rightly convicted a larger number of guilty people; consequently, it continues to be of great value in the American judicial system. What is the main idea of the passage？ A．Bernard Jackson spent five years in prison for no crime of his own. B．Eyewitness testimony, although sometimes incorrect, is valuable. C．Police officers are no better eyewitnesses than civilians are. D．American courts rightly convict a larger number of guilty people.

A．the individual B．the society C．the universe D．God