- 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.)
Melissa Boatswain
POL-100
The court system is often better suited to protect individuals because it is designed to interpret and uphold the Constitution, safeguarding individual rights from potential overreach by elected branches of government. Unlike elected officials who may respond to popular pressures or political incentives, judges are tasked with making decisions based on legal principles and constitutional protections. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, effectively protecting the rights of African American students. This decision was made despite considerable opposition from parts of the public and certain state governments. This illustrates how the court system can protect individual rights when elected branches may be slower to act or prioritize other interests.
The federal court system, and especially the Supreme Court, could be considered “anti-democratic” in the sense that federal judges are appointed rather than elected and serve lifetime terms. This structure was intentional, as the framers wanted federal judges to be insulated from political pressures, allowing them to make impartial decisions based on law rather than popular opinion. Federalist #10, for example, argues that a well-constructed government can help control the “mischiefs of faction” and protect minority rights against majority rule. By having an appointed judiciary, judges are somewhat removed from the influences that affect elected officials, such as campaign pressures or shifts in public opinion. This system was intended to provide a stable and independent judiciary capable of upholding constitutional principles, even if those principles were unpopular or inconvenient for the ruling majority.
Tatiana Reyes
POL-100
The court system is better situated to protect the individual than the elected branches of government because it is independent and based on the rule of law. Courts do not have to worry about public opinion or political pressure, whereas elected officials must cater to the will of the voters. This independence makes the judiciary unbiased to any other branch of the government and the majority opinion. It allows the judiciary to stand up for the rights and liberties of people, even if those rights are unpopular or opposed by the majority. For example, the Supreme Court held in Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional and protected the rights of African American students. In this decision, the judiciary protected marginalized groups against discriminatory policies enacted or tolerated by elected officials. The mandate of the courts is to interpret and apply constitutional principles and check excesses in the executive and legislative branches of government.
I do not agree that the Supreme Court and federal court system are an anti-democratic part of our government. The judges are not elected by the people but appointed to be independent and impartial. It was designed that way by the framers, and as argued in Federalist #10, it was to guard against the dangers of majority rule and factionalism. The judiciary focuses on judicial interpretation through constitutional principles, not popular opinions or pressures. The appointment process ensures a selection of qualified judges to decide cases through their legal experience in applying the rule of law and not their ability to win the popular vote.
This system is the backbone of the framer’s intention to balance the influence between classes and prevent any single class’s domination over government. The judiciary was designed to guard individual rights, especially those of minorities, against the tyranny of the majority. Apart from elected representatives, who tend to succumb to the will of their constituents, judges interpret the laws with an objective approach.