1. The court system is better suited to protect the individual rather than the elected branches of the government like the President due to various instances and reasons. The court system is set up to help more detailed and specific cases whereas the President or Congress, have to decide what would be the best solution for everybody as a whole, this could mean upsetting some people. The court system handles much smaller cases with judges that are unbiased and interpret laws fairly. 
2. I do not agree that the Supreme Court is an anti democratic part of our government. This way of choosing judges in federal courts is to ensure that they are skilled and qualified. This way, there is no biased decision on who the judge is, based on merit and credibility. This process is the only way to fairly balance power. 

1. The court system is better suited to protect the individuals than the elected branches because the state courts themselves enhance an individuals potential to be heard. They provide different alternatives for political access. As well as promote interest and give access to particular groups.
2. No, i don’t think that the supreme court is an anti democratic part of our government because there not influenced by public opinion and operate under the jurisdiction. They choose judges in federal courts this way because different circuits can hold different legal and cultural views.

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.

1. I believe that having a dual court system provides us all as citizens more ways to be protected by the law. I think that this system is built in a way  that guarantees the protection of the individual’s rights. When I was reading through this module’s lectures I noticed how the separation of the courts on federal and state level is a form in which, depending on the type of case, it’s going to be assigned to the right court level. I noticed that the state level is where most of the cases are heard and solved. Despite other branches of the government such as the President himself or the Mayor of the city, to me, courts play a more important role because they work first hand with people. The president or the Mayor are less likely to hear from citizens. However, courts guarantee people that they are going to have a secure trial and also that their rights are going to be protected.

2.Totally agree. In my opinion, the “election” of judges is just one more example of  how ideology, class, and power work together in order to become a force of authority in this country. The Supreme Court is a very good example of this. The most important court of our nation is formed by 9 judges. Each judge whose appointment is nominated by the president. Very convenient right? To me, the fact that the president is the one who nominates their judges is a form of establishing his/her ideologies in the most important court of the country. It’s like electing one of their friends to be their vice-president, but more important than that. If we notice the fact that Supreme Court’s judges stay in their position forever (it’s a lifetime job), to me, what the president does is securing himself by having an ally inside of the Supreme Court. I mean, If I were the President I would do the same lol. All of this just makes me go back to the fact that class again plays a huge role in order to become some sort of authority in our government system.

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.

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.

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.

The court system is better suited to protect the individual through fair hearings, interpreting laws, and providing mechanisms to challenge infringement, whether it is a criminal or civil matter. They protect individuals of all minorities and protect the rights of people who can’t protect themselves.  

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.) 

I don’t believe the Supreme Court is anti-democratic, however, I do believe some of the judges are, such as Chief Justice John Roberts, who has a record for being consistently anti-democratic when deciding cases that affect American democracy.  

The reason for the way judges are chosen in federal courts is so that the upper class has the judges on their side. The fact that they are nominated by the president and not voted for says that they were chosen specifically to be on the side of the person who is nominating them.  

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.

The court system, especially the federal judiciary, is better positioned to safeguard individual rights compared to elected branches like Congress or the President. For instance, in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court struck down segregation laws, highlighting the judiciary’s role in advancing civil rights. While elected officials might prioritize political agendas, judges strive for impartiality, ensuring decisions are based on constitutional principles. Additionally, the court system’s structure, with hierarchical organization and lifetime appointments, provides stability in protecting individual liberties over time.

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.)

The Supreme Court’s appointment process, unlike the election of other government officials, has led to criticism of its anti-democratic nature. While appointed judges may lack direct accountability to voters, this system aims to ensure qualifications and expertise guide judicial decisions rather than political pressures. The choice of appointment over election reflects the Founders’ concern for safeguarding minority rights against majority tyranny, as outlined in Federalist No. 10. Additionally, the influence of social elites, who often play a leading role in government, contributes to the appointment system’s persistence. Overall, while the appointment process may seem anti-democratic, it serves to balance democratic principles with the need for an independent judiciary committed to upholding the rule of law.

1. I believe the court system is better suited to protect the people than the elected branches of government because the courts are supposed to make sure they are upholding the laws without any biases. When I say biases, I mean no outside people or politics swaying the decisions and rulings. The mayor, president and government deal with bigger issues of the state and county while the court are more for the people. An example of this is Roe vs Wade and how they wanted to restrict and deny women’s rights to access abortions. The court showed how this law violated a women’s privacy.
2. Yes, I do believe that the court system is anti-democratic part of our government because of how the judges are appointed. When they are appointed, they do not have any political influences and they do not have to feel the pressure of being elected by the people like the rest of the government officials and it’s based on their experience and knowledge. Not really sure a little confused on how to answer this

1. The court system protects individuals more than the elected branches of government does, in most cases. The court system sees to it that the laws are aligned with the constitutional principles, and it also has a system of checks and balances on the governments power. An example of this would be the Brown v. Board of Education. The court ruled against segregation in schools even though there was a lot of push back from elected officials.

2. I agree that the Supreme Court is an anti-democratic part of our government because of the reasons behind why judges are appointed instead of being elected like other positions in government. Judges being appointed certifies that the way they analyze the law is based on merit and not based on the pressure they may get from the public. Also, appointing a judge instead of electing one means there is a greater chance that the person is qualified and an expert to be able to do the job