1.name the two factors that give federal courts jurisdiction over a case. give an example of each.

2.why do presidents prefer federal judges who tend to agree with their views?

3. how is a case usually heard and decided when it reaches the supreme court.

1. Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases in which the accusation pertains to a violation of federal law, and also in cases where parties involved in a lawsuit are from different states within the US or if one of the parties is a foreign entity.

2. Presidents (in general) will tend to appoint judges who align with their own views on political justice because they don't want their own attempts at leadership blocked by the courts, and also they hope to be able to leave a lasting legacy on nation overall through what they would consider favorable court decisions. Ideally, however, presidents will choose appointees for federal courts and the Supreme Court based on the overall strength of their qualifications, not merely based on political leanings they may seem to have.

3. Once a case reaches the Supreme Court, the The Supreme Court itself decides which cases it will hear.

The Supreme Court is asked to review more than 7,000 cases each year, so it would not be possible for the court to hear and make a decision on every case that is sent to it.  The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100 to 150 cases per year.  The vast majority of those cases work their way up to the Supreme Court from lower courts.  About two-thirds of the cases come from lower federal court decisions that are appealed for review, and about one-third of the cases are reviewing decisions made by supreme courts of individual states. 

There are some cases that can have original jurisdiction at the Supreme Court level -- such as when there is a case between one state government and another or between state governments and the federal government. These are more rare within the overall agenda of the Court.

there is no chart here so no one can answer this.

1) checks and balances- this idea is implemented in the constitution to ensure that no one branch of the federal government gains too much power. for example, the legislative branch(congress) can approve a bill that will then be sent to the executive branch (president). if the president does not like the bill or thinks that it violates the rights of citizens, he/she can veto the bill. vetoing the bill stops the bill from becoming a law. this check on power ensures that congress makes laws that do not violate the rights of citizens.

2) anti-federalists do not want to ratify the constitution unless it includes a bill of rights. the anti-federalists are worried that the constitution gives too much power to the federal government. having a strong central government caused problems when the us was still part of great britain. this is why the anti-federalists are fearful of this type of system.

3) federalists want a new constitution passed because it will fix america's weak political structure. before the us constitution is implemented, the constitution being used is known as the articles of confederation. this constitution has an extremely weak central government, allowing for disunity among the states.

can't do the whole thing, hope this