- 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.
I think the court system does a better job of protecting individual rights than elected officials like Congress or the President. One reason for this is that judges are supposed to be impartial and base their decisions on the law, rather than what’s popular at the moment. Elected officials often have to cater to public opinion to stay in office, which can lead to decisions that aren’t always fair. An example of this is the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education. In 1954, the Court ruled that segregating schools based on race was unconstitutional. At the time, many people supported segregation, but the Court’s decision protected the rights of African American students. This shows how the judicial system can stand up for individuals, even when society might not agree.
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 understand why many people view the Supreme Court as anti-democratic since its justices are appointed rather than elected. Unlike the President or members of Congress, Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointments, which can create a sense of separation from the public. It can seem unfair, especially since they have the power to make significant decisions without the pressure of re-election. However, I do believe there’s a good reason for this system. In Federalist # 10, Madison discussed how factions and majority rule can sometimes infringe on individual rights. By appointing judges, we aim to ensure that those making important legal decisions are focused on upholding the law and the Constitution, rather than simply following popular opinion. Many of the judges have educational backgrounds and are equipped to make informed decisions that protect everyone, not just the majority. So, while the Supreme Court may come off as somewhat undemocratic, it actually plays an essential role in defending our individual rights.
