Which two arguments support judicial restraint? It is the job of the court to shape social policy.
It is the job of the court to consider changing social conditions and values.
It is the job of the court to defer to the policy decisions of the executive branch.
It is the job of the court to consider precedent.

1. It is the job of the court to defer to the policy decisions of the executive branch.

2. It is the job of the court to consider precedent.

Explanation:

Given that Judicial restraint is a form. of a procedural technique whereby judges were advised to stop taking a decision concerning legal issues, most specifically relating to constitutional ones, except in special cases where the decision is necessary as the main resolution of a substantial dispute between adverse parties.

Hence, in this case, the two arguments that support judicial restraints are:

1. It is the job of the court to defer to the policy decisions of the executive branch.

2. It is the job of the court to consider precedent.

i'd assume india mainly because of how isolated japan was.   plus it is a whole china away.

answer: (fluidity)is the correct answer.

explanation: because of this characteristic, success on the battlefield depends in large part on the ability to adapt to proactively change events to our advantage as well as to react quickly to constantly changing conditions