1. 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.
Because the court system directly relates to an individual, it is better suited to protect individual rights than Congress and the President, or the Mayor and the City Assembly. This is because Congress and the President tend to deal with the overall effects of their actions and trying to take care of the country as a large unit, while the court system deals more with the details and interpretation of those actions. Courts, especially district courts, can focus on much smaller-scale incidents, such as civil disputes between two parties or criminal conflicts. They must consider how the law applies to the specific case in front of them, meaning that they are applying laws and precedents to, most likely, individuals who are directly affected by them. An example of this is that the President and Congress can create laws that make discrimination illegal, while the courts will protect individuals directly by determining through cases what is and is not discrimination through its real-world application. Thus, while the law creates protection for the individual, the court system applies it.

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?
I do not necessarily think that the Supreme Court is anti-democratic, because, while they are not appointed or voted in by the people in the same way that the President or Congress are, they are still selected and approved by the agents that the people have elected into office. So, to me, that seems to fall within the definition of democracy, though I personally would like to see a change where the people could have more direct involvement in who is selected for the Supreme Court.
I believe this was selected as the way of choosing judges because the framers of the Constitution likely wanted a way to appoint a branch of government that could directly look out for their interests and their interpretation of the Constitution. By having it be that the President selected the justices and Congress needed to vote them into office, and with those roles also being filled by the capitalist class, it was more likely that justices would be selected that would continue to benefit the capitalist class. Also, thanks to having life terms after being selected, that meant that even if the working class were to gain the Presidency or a majority in Congress in an election year, the Supreme Court would be unchanged and continue to focus on the rights of the wealthy. In that same example, if the President or Congress were to make moves that benefited the working class at the expense of the capitalist class, the Supreme Court could rule those changes unconstitutional in order to maintain the benefits of the capitalist class. Therefore, it makes sense that the reason for this way of choosing judges in federal court was likely a way to further protect the interests of the capitalist class in a way that would be difficult to change quickly.