Judge Kayla Hamm hears a civil case about alleged sexual harassment. Judge Hamm strongly feels like the Defendant should be held liable because his behavior is morally reprehensible but sets aside her personal feeling and defers to the language of statutes and case precedents. Upon reading the statutes and case law she feels that the laws are unfair, however, based on that language she does not find that the Plaintiff has proven her case and finds for the Defendant. Judge Hamm's final decision is an example of which school of thought

The Positivist School of thought.

Explanation:

The Positivist School of thought is a school of thought which studies the behavioral patterns of criminals. This school of thought was developed by Cesare Lombroso. This school of thought helps to understand what makes the criminal violate the moral laws and commit crime.

The Positivisit School of Thought helps to understand motivations of the criminal based on three categories: biological, social, and psychological. After studying this, it helps to determine what should be done with criminal.

In the given scenario, Judgge Kayla Hamm has based her decision on the Positivist school of thought. Due to lack of any evidencee against the Defendant, he/she can not be punished.

the anti federalists was a movement that was opposed to the creation of a us federal government. although they were not as organized as the federalists, they also had a large group of leaders, especially in state politics.

the statement "now, in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people” represents the concerns of the anti federalists.

they strongly believed that the federalists were representing the interests of aristocratic elements of society at the expense of the majority of ordinary people, who lived in a rural society.

their fear for the creation of a strong federal government and the president’s power of veto in their opinion would create a tyrannical rule that would dominate the people. they defended the importance of restraining the government’s power towards people at any cost.