Although there are myriad purposes for having Article III judges, arguably the most important among them is that they are insulated from the pressures of politics. Put slightly differently, imagine if you had a case before a judge who was elected rather than appointed, and thus had to answer to a constituency. In broad strokes, this may seem ok, but if we fill in the lines slightly it becomes a little more objectionable. Thus, imagine that you, as an individual, were suing, say “Mickey World,” the famous theme park in your town. Mickey World, as a major theme park, employs over half of the city, and is the biggest donor in every election. Imagine further that the judge presiding over your case is up for election the next year. Are you not at least a little suspicious of the judge’s ability to remain impartial in light of the fact that they must stand election, and you are suing the biggest election donor in your entire city? The Founders recognized the impropriety of such a situation and took pains to avoid it through insulating the federal judiciary from politics.

This is an interesting question. The correct answer is “preventing the defendant from getting ‘hometowned’.” (See below if you don’t remember what “diversity jurisdiction” is). At any rate, the reasoning goes something like this: if you’re a “good ole’ Georgia boy” suing a “Yankee” in Coffee Co. Superior Court (for those of you unfamiliar with small counties in Georgia, Coffee County is a very small, very southern county in SE GA) it seems unlikely that the northern defendant is going to get a fair shake! After all, jury pools in state court are drawn from the county in which the plaintiff filed the action. Moreover, many state judges are actually elected—the judiciary in GA, for example, is elected in a “nonpartisan” election.

Diversity jurisdiction solves this dilemma by allowing defendants to remove their case to federal court (provided they meet the criteria) and avoid suffering any local bias. Federal judges are not elected, they are insulated from politics, and the jury pool for district courts is much deeper and broader (that is, less geographically compact) than it is for state courts.

Remember: in order to bring a case to federal court under “diversity jurisdiction” you must meet two requirements: (1) every plaintiff must be diverse (that is a citizen of a different state) from every defendant, and (2) relief sought must be over $75,000.

A writ of certiorari is issued by a higher court when it wants to review a lower court's decision. A writ of mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering him or her to properly fulfill his or her official duties. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order to a person or institution holding someone in custody to deliver the imprisoned person to the court. A writ of assistance is a court order instructing a law enforcement official to perform a certain task. A writ of body attachment is a court order directing the U.S. Marshal to bring a person who has been found in civil contempt to the court.

A Writ of Mandamus is a court order directed at a lesser government official requiring that official to carry out the duties and responsibilities of his or her office.

In the United States Court system, the losing party in a court case has the right to appeal to a higher court about the nature and fairness of the verdict. The ability of the a Federal court, particularly the Supreme Court, to review a court decision made by a lower court is called appellate jurisdiction—as in "appeals."

The Rule of Four is a rule that is used in Supreme Court practice to decide which cases to hear. It states that if four or more judges agree that a case should be heard, then it must be heard. This is not a rule codified into law, but rather a precedent established throughout Supreme Court history.

 is the most common length of oral arguments. For more controversial cases, it may be extended. This a procedural arrangement determined by the Justices. They may hear many cases, and thus oral arguments must be concise.

The Supreme Court agrees to hear the case is the correct answer. Remember that “certiorari” is Latin for “to be informed of” which helps us because that is exactly what the Supreme Court is trying to do here. In other words, once the Supreme Court grants cert, they’ll schedule oral argument (over the merits of the case), and then read numerous briefs (essentially written arguments saying why one side should win/lose) in order to get an understanding of the case and thus render a decision.

Nothing cannot be the correct answer because of all of the reasons above. It is likely true that the Supreme Court is interested in the case, but that is only part of the answer.

The petitioner wins/loses cannot be correct because the Supreme Court has only agreed to HEAR the case; they cannot render a decision until after they do so.

The lower court(s) being reversed cannot be true because the Supreme Court may not in fact reverse the lower court: they can affirm (that is, uphold) it. Indeed, oftentimes the Supreme Court will take a case and affirm the reasoning of the lower court in order to clarify a point of law. 

Stare decisis is latin for "let the decision stand" (or thereabouts). It is more than just legal jargon, however, as it is a doctrine on which every common law system rests. More specifically, as a common law system, our courts rely on "precedent" which is a technical term for (similar) cases that have been decided by an earlier court. Reliance on precedent is motivated by more than pure laziness or convenience; it's incredibly important from a stability standpoint.

Take, for example, a case that was over the proper definition of an apple. Imagine that court 1 decided the case in 1800 and held that an apple was "a fleshy fruit, encasing a core with seeds, with a waxy skin that can be any number of colors, but is most commonly red, green, or yellow." Great! Makes sense so far. Imagine further, however, that court 2 heard a case involving the same issue (the definition of the apple) in 1805 and decided that it was "a round pulpy fruit with easily divisible segments, each of which holds seeds." Wait a minute. That sounds more like an orange than an apple, and, more importantly, everything the first court worked for has been turned on its head in 5 years! Now imagine that this scenario repeated itself--litigants and courts would never be certain what the definition of an apple was going to be! Thus, stare decisis, which councils courts to rely on precedent when they can, is of utmost importance to a common law system. 

All of the other answers are incorrect either because the translation is wrong, or because the reason behind the importance is wrong. 

The correct answer is “the process by which the Supreme Court decides if it will hear a case.” Before getting into the meat of the answer, remember that, in regards to the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction, it has “discretionary authority.” In other words, the Supreme Court has near-complete control over its docket—it can determine which cases it wants to hear.

Moving on. When a party appeals to the Supreme Court, they petition for a ‘writ of certiorari.’ All of these petitions go into (essentially) a gigantic pile called the ‘cert pool.’ In order to determine which cases will be docketed (and thus heard), the Justices vote. As long as four Justices vote “yes” on a case, the Supreme Court will hear it, hence the “rule of four. “

As for the other answers:

Senatorial courtesy has nothing to do with case selection. Senatorial courtesy is an informal process—a gentleman’s agreement, if you will—in between the President and Congress when selecting district court judges. This also applies to the answer “the process by which the Senate confirms Article III judges/justices.”

“The number of Supreme Court justices . . .  to render a majority decision” is obviously incorrect because there are 9 sitting justices, and 4 is NOT a majority.

“A rule of statutory construction . . . “ is incorrect for a plethora of reasons. For one, statutory construction is not a topic for AP US Gov students. More importantly, it’s completely made up and not true!