Question ID:PT16 S4 Q11 Passage:The United States Supreme Court has not always resolved legal issues of concern to Native Americans in a manner that has pleased the Indian nations. Many of the Court’s decisions have been products of political compromise that looked more to the temper of the times than to enduring principles of law. But accommodation is part of the judicial system in the United States, and judicial decisions must be assessed with this fact in mind.Despite the “accommodating” nature of the judicial system, it is worth noting that the power of the Supreme Court has been exercised in a manner that has usually been beneficial to Native Americans, at least on minor issues, and has not been wholly detrimental on the larger, more important issues. Certainly there have been decisions that cast doubt on the validity of this assertion. Some critics point to the patronizing tone of many Court opinions and the apparent rejection of Native American values as important points to consider when reviewing a case. However, the validity of the assertion can be illustrated by reference to two important contributions that have resulted from the exercise of judicial power.First, the Court has created rules of judicial construction that, in general, favor the rights of Native American litigants. The Court’s attitude has been conditioned by recognition of the distinct disadvantages Native Americans faced when dealing with settlers in the past. Treaties were inevitably written in English for the benefit of their authors, whereas tribal leaders were accustomed to making treaties without any written account, on the strength of mutual promises sealed by religious commitment and individual integrity. The written treaties were often broken, and Native Americans were confronted with fraud and political and military aggression. The Court recognizes that past unfairness to Native Americans cannot be sanctioned by the force of law. Therefore, ambiguities in treaties are to be interpreted in favor of the Native American claimants, treaties are to be interpreted as the Native Americans would have understood them, and, under the reserved rights doctrine, treaties reserve to Native Americans all rights that have not been specifically granted away in other treaties.A second achievement of the judicial system is the protection that has been provided against encroachment by the states into tribal affairs. Federal judges are not inclined to view favorably efforts to extend states’ powers and jurisdictions because of the direct threat that such expansion poses to the exercise of federal powers. In the absence of a federal statute directly and clearly allocating a function to the states, federal judges are inclined to reserve for the federal government—and the tribal governments under its charge—all those powers and rights they can be said to have possessed historically. Stem:It can be inferred that the author calls the judicial system of the United States “accommodating” (line 10) primarily in order to Correct Answer Choice:CChoice A:suggest that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have been less favorable to Native Americans than most people believe Choice B:suggest that the United States Supreme Court should be more supportive of the goals of Native Americans Choice C:suggest a reason why the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have not always favored Native Americans Choice D:indicate that the United States Supreme Court has made creditable efforts to recognize the values of Native Americans Choice E:indicate that the United States Supreme Court attempts to be fair to all parties to a case