- In what ways is the court system better suited to protect the individual, than are the elected branches of government (such as Congress and the President; or the Mayor of NYC and the NYC City Assembly)? Give an example to illustrate your argument.
The protection of individual rights by the court system as opposed to elected officials is that judges don’t have to put any political pressure and can make decisions based on the law. It is an unbiased way to resolve legal disagreements and safeguards all parties’ constitutional entitlements. This process ensures that only the most qualified and knowledgeable individuals are appointed to the Court and that their decisions are based on legal expertise rather than political considerations.
2. Think about how federal judges get to become judges – unlike Presidents, Mayors and members of Congress (and other legislatures), they are not elected, but rather appointed. Many Americans have thus called the federal courts system, and especially the Supreme Court, anti-democratic PLACES IN OUR GOVERNMENT. Do you agree that the Supreme Court, for example, is an anti-democratic part of our government? What could be the reason for this way of choosing judges in federal courts? (HINT: think about our discussion of “Federalist #10”, and which social class plays a leading role in our government system.)
No. This distinction has been made in order to keep the judiciary separate from political influences, protecting minority rights and maintaining consistent legal standards. However, the appointment of three conservative justices during Donald Trump’s presidency shifted the court’s balance and resulted in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which raises questions about how well the court is upholding the idea of safeguarding minority rights as outlined in Federalist #10.
