Final answer:
The provided question deals with historical Roman governance, legal prohibitions, and modern comparisons, including the roles and restrictions in the Roman government, Plato's ideal governmental rule by philosophers, the checks and balances through the veto powers of Roman officials, and U.S. Supreme Court justices' appointment and confirmation process.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question provided relates to various aspects of Roman history and law, touching upon the roles of different individuals and categories of people who are prohibited from serving in particular capacities, such as being a Roman senator or participating in the decision-making bodies due to legal prohibitions resulting from criminal offenses. Additionally, the question invites a comparison between ancient Roman civil roles and modern equivalents, as well as a discussion on the governmental system of ideals proposed by Plato. Moreover, it queries the checks and balances of power within the Roman Republic through the veto powers of certain officials and the role of the modern U.S. Supreme Court justices.
For example, the question about who could veto the actions within the Roman law courts points to the praetors and consuls, reflecting the system of checks and balances evident in Roman government, akin to modern governmental functions. Looking at Plato's ideal government, he advocated for the rule of philosophers, deeming them most suited to govern wisely. Additionally, the modern analogy for a Roman gladiator is commonly compared to a football player insofar as both are athletes who perform for the entertainment of spectators. Lastly, when discussing the serving in the Armed Forces or as a juror, such roles can be viewed as legal duties, with some also considering them to be moral duties.