Take a closer look at some of the operational norms of the supreme court, such as the rule of four or the prohibition on cameras in the courtroom. what is your opinion about them as long-standing traditions, and which (if any), do you believe should be changed? explain your answer.

Explanation:

According to Wikipedia, ***"The rule of four is not required by the Constitution, any law, or even the Supreme Court's own published rules. Rather, it is a custom that has been observed since the Court was given discretion over which appeals to hear by the Judiciary Act of 1891It is a working rule devised by the Court as a practical mode of determining that a case is deserving of review, the theory being that if four Justices find that a legal question of general importance is raised, that is ample proof that the question has such importance. This is a fair enough rule of thumb on the assumption that four Justices find such importance on an individualized screening of the cases sought to be reviewed."***

Rhis modus operandi helps to streamline the quality and amount of appeal that is granted Certiorari by ensuring that only very important question is given consideration.

This would hence discard those questions, scenarios or appeals that does not win the vote of the four justices.

Hence it is a not so favorable procedure to the minority masses holding a claim that seems trivial in the surface.

But this procedure should remain.

And also, camera's should not be prohibited in the court room. This helps to test for objectivity.

answer; /// i believe the correct answer is (b) disposition

many citizens are in danger of contracting a food-borne illness.

more people are living with chronic illnesses.

pathogens are becoming stronger and harder to defeat.

edge nuity