The economy is in a recession and you are in charge of determining the government’s response. Should the policy be expansionary or contractionary? What is the goal that your policy is attempting to solve? What will be more effective, fiscal or monetary policy? Why is your preferred policy the better alternative? (In other words, what are some drawbacks of the policy you didn’t select?) Or, in your opinion, should the government do nothing at all and let the economy recover on its own? If you select this option you need to make the case for why government intervention of any kind does more harm than good.

Supreme court. jim, who is a bit eccentric, says that he is fed up with the way a certain employer in his town treats employees and that he is going to sue that employer in an effort to improve matters. jim also says that he is going to start his case at the appellate court level, skipping over all those "lesser" judges. jim says that those justices will surely hear him out and that he will also seek a jury. although he is not a lawyer, jim believes that the offenses of the employer are so severe that the justices will appreciate his attempt to make things better for the employees involved. will jim get a jury at the appellate court level?