1. People are more protected by the court system, especially the Supreme Court than by elected branches of government like the President or Congress. This is because the court can look at laws and government actions to ensure they follow the Constitution. For example, the Supreme Court supported people’s right to equal treatment under the law in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), ruling that racial school segregation was unconstitutional. Although popular opinion can influence the decisions made by elected officials, the courts choose to uphold the Constitution and defend the rights of all people, regardless of their minority status.  The court system ensures that people’s rights are protected and serves as a check on the government’s authority.
2. Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, are selected rather than elected, which has been criticized as anti-democratic. However, it is acceptable with the republican ideals presented in Federalist Paper #10. James Madison believed that it is essential for a democratic society to restrict the negative consequences of division. By selecting judges, it is possible to choose them based on their skills and abilities rather than allegiance or popular opinion. This procedure guarantees a judicial system that follows minority rights and the Constitution. The selection of federal judges helps to strike an agreement between the requirement for judicial independence and democratic ideals, while the opinion of some that it is anti-democratic.

The court system is better suited to protect the individual than the elected branches of government due to the judiciary’s independence and impartiality. Federal judges including those in the Supreme Court are appointed based on merit and legal expertis rather than being elected through popular vote. This appointment process ensures that judges are not swayed by political pressure or public opinion when making legal decisions, safe guarding individual rights and upholding the rule of law. While some may view the Supreme Court as anti democratic due to the lifetime appointments of federal judges, this system is designed to insulate the judiciary from political influences and ensure stability and continuity in legal interpretation. The Founding Fathers, influenced by the ideas presented in “Federalist #10,” recognized the potential dangers of majority tyranny and sought to establish a system where the judiciary.

1) The court system is better at protecting individual rights mainly because judges don’t face the same political pressures as elected officials. They can make decisions based on what’s right according to the law, without worrying too much about public opinion or reelection. A great example of this is the Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954. The Supreme Court ruled that segregated schools were unconstitutional, a decision that was necessary for advancing civil rights but might have been too politically sensitive for elected officials to handle at the time. This shows how the courts can stand up for what’s right, even when it’s not the popular thing to do.

2) I consider the U.S. Supreme Court an anti-democratic part of our government because, unlike most other government roles, justices are appointed instead of elected. This is a stark contrast to how we choose Presidents or Congress members, who are directly elected by the people. The rationale behind appointing judges, as explained in “Federalist #10,” is to ensure the judiciary remains independent of political swings and populist influences, intended to safeguard minority rights and maintain consistent legal standards.

During his presidency, Donald Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. These appointments tilted the court’s balance sharply to the conservative side. A major outcome of this shift was the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which drastically changed the legal landscape around abortion rights in the U.S. How does that represent the Federalist #10 idea of safeguarding minority rights?!

The court system is better suited to protect the individual in several ways compared to the elected branches of government in ways one being  independence of the judiciary, which allows judges to apply law without being persuaded  by political considerations or public opinion. For example, in the United States, the Supreme Court has the authority to review laws passed by Congress to make sure they go with the constitution this protects individual rights 

I do agree that this Supreme Court anti-Democratic, federalist #10 Madison discusses the dangers a majority faction, the system is made so decisions is made off of law and not biased , the way, federal judges are picked seems to be based off of social class

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.

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.)