Why is it important that a historian considers people's perspective and biases; evidence; trustworthiness before they formulate their historical perspective?

It's important because they do not want to teach disinformation, misinformation, or just plain out lies. Here's an example, let's say a historian was asking a co.vid denier if co.vid is real, and if that historian didn't know any better then they will write that down and boom history.

Explanation:

This should be common sense not just for historians.

most are appointed by the president and confirmed by a vote in the senate. however, appeals court judges appoint federal bankruptcy judges, and district judges appoint federal magistrate judges. the qualifications for these positions vary depending on the preferences of the person reviewing nominees.

hope this , give me brainliest answer = )

it would have concentrated power in the executive branch of the government. it would have restored balance among the three branches of government. it would have set a precedent for government intervention in the economy. it would have signaled an end to all the programs of roosevelt’s new deal.

did this .