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.

2. 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.)

Some have claimed that the Supreme Court is ‘undemocratic’ because it has judges, not presidents, as its decision-makers. However, such a structure is put in place to safeguard the rights of individuals and ensure that there is continuity in legalities than to bend to the wishes of the majority. In Federalist rationing number ten Madison explained how boisterous majorities or what he termed factions could enact legislation that would oppress the minority. With this in mind, the framers aimed at creating an independent judiciary that would be a balance to political might and a guardian of the constitution no matter how much the public opinion was against it. The purpose of appointing rather than electing the judges is to ensure that the decisions to be made are based on the law and the constitution and not on political gains or the current trends. This in turns helps in preventing the judiciary from being an arm of the majority or of the political opponents, and frees it to concentrate on the business of interpreting and applying the constitution and the laws and protecting the rights of individuals including members of minority communities. Although this system reduces the level of direct democratic influence, it is in harmony with the objectives of the framers of the constitution to create a system of balanced government where the judicial arm has the role of being the stabilizer different from the political arms. It also depicts the fact that elites who are those in possession of wealth and power, have played a critical role in the formation of the political and legal systems. In this sense, the Court can be viewed as an organization that responds to the needs of this part of society, which, from time to time, may be in contrast with what the rest of the population wants. But the judiciary’s independence is supposed to prevent the application of justice according to the trends of political developments so as to balance the other arms of government from possible abuses of power.

1. The court system, especially the Supreme Court, is better at protecting individual rights than elected branches like Congress or the President because it’s less tied to politics and public opinion. Justices are appointed for life, so they don’t have to worry about reelection or making decisions just to stay popular. This gives them the freedom to focus on what the Constitution says instead of what voters or interest groups want. Additionally, the Court’s whole job is to interpret the law and the Constitution, which is often about protecting people’s rights, even when it’s unpopular. Elected officials, on the other hand, usually go with what the majority wants because that’s how they keep their jobs. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Politicians were too scared to push back against segregation because it wasn’t a popular move at the time. The Supreme Court stepped in and declared segregation in schools unconstitutional, protecting the rights of Black students. In other words, the courts are designed to look out for individuals and minority groups when the majority or the government isn’t doing the right thing.

2.I do think that the Supreme Court is somewhat anti-democratic in the sense that justices aren’t elected buy appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and they get to serve for life. Unlike Presidents or members of Congress, they don’t have to answer to voters, for good (like in my answer for question #1 and bad). With that said, I think there’s a reason it’s set up this way. In Federalist #10, Madison talks about protecting against the “tyranny of the majority”, by keeping judges independent from elections, they can focus on the Constitution and the law instead of trying to stay popular. However, the President and Senators, who pick and approve these judges, often come from wealthy or elite backgrounds, so the judges they choose can possibly reflect those same upper-class agendas. It’s a reminder that even though the courts are supposed to be neutral and unbiased, our government is still heavily influenced by the interests of the elite.

1. The Court System’s Role in Protecting Individuals

The federal court system often serves as a stronger protector of individual rights compared to the elected branches of government like Congress or the Presidency. This strength comes from the courts’ insulation from political pressures and public opinion, allowing judges and justices to make decisions based on law and constitutional principles, regardless of popularity. For instance, in the landmark case Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court recognized a woman’s right to choose an abortion as a protected right to privacy. This decision, made amidst strong and divided public opinion, highlighted the court’s ability to uphold fundamental rights without succumbing to electoral pressures, illustrating the judiciary’s crucial role in safeguarding individual liberties against majority influence.

2. The Supreme Court’s Place in a Democratic Society

The Supreme Court is often viewed as “anti-democratic” because its justices are appointed, not elected, and serve lifetime terms. This distance from electoral accountability might seem at odds with democratic principles, where leaders are directly chosen by the public. However, this design is deliberate and serves to protect the judiciary from the volatile nature of political trends and public opinion, as discussed in Federalist #10 by James Madison. He warned of the dangers of majority rule overriding minority rights. Thus, the judiciary’s role is to provide a stable, unbiased interpretation of the law, free from the pressures of popular demand. The appointment process—where the President nominates justices who are then confirmed by the Senate—ensures that those selected are both highly qualified and able to apply the law based on constitutional principles rather than political convenience. Though this may seem less democratic, it is a crucial component of the checks and balances system that maintains legal consistency and upholds the Constitution, protecting against any majority’s potential tyranny. Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s structure is vital for upholding the rule of law and safeguarding individual rights, central to democratic governance.

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. One area in which the court system is better suited to protect the individual than the elected branches of the government are through the protection of individual rights through multiple court systems. This example can be shown through the Miranda v. Arizona Case, where Miranda was a man who was convicted of criminal activity he had done to another person. He was initially convicted and sentenced to prison when his own signed confession was used as a piece of evidence at a trial in the Arizona Court. However, Miranda made an appeal to the Arizona and U.S Supreme Court to exclude that piece of evidence since it had violated Miranda’s Fifth Amendment right to be protected against self-incrimination. Since Miranda did not waive his fifth-Amendment rights when putting in this confession and he wasn’t given the right to an attorney (which violates his sixth amendment rights), Miranda’s conviction was overturned (though he did still have to face charges for the crimes that he committed later down the line). Another way that the court system is better suited to protect the individual is through allowing the voices of minorities to be heard and potentially have their issues be solved if they have the proper claim and evidence for that issue. Minorities are typically drowned out it when it comes to dealing with a lot of issues and the other elected branches of the government tend to ignore them in order to continue pursuing things that would allow continue to help the wealthy, so actually having an area where they can have their problems solved (should the proper circumstances be met) speaks volumes as to how significant it is to have a court system available to them. 

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 do agree that the Supreme Court is an anti-democratic part of our government, though not fully. The reason why I say its not fully anti-democratic is because of the fact that the Supreme Court judges do take into consideration the feelings of interest groups and the public when it comes to their judgment on their cases. However, a good chunk of the things that surround the Supreme Court are very anti-democratic, such as how solicitor generals are the ones who decide which cases are appealed from the lower courts and is the one who has to approve the cases that are presented, them being the ones who determine that the government will take on a case and can recommend that the Supreme Court justices decline to hear a case if desired. Even though solicitor generals don’t have unlimited power and the Supreme Court justices can ignore their recommendations, they more often than not follow them even when they aren’t expected to. On top of this, the Supreme Court Justices themselves are appointed to their positions by the federal government themselves (nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate) and not the public, meaning that the Supreme Court justices who were appointed are most likely going to be of a similar social class to those that appointed them, that being the wealthy social class. As seen the federalist #10 papers, since the government believes that the wealthy are the ones who deserve to have their wealth and rights protected due to earning it through their intelligence and that poor people are not capable of earning that wealth since they aren’t intelligent, the government will continue to focus on protecting the rights and desires of those who matter and deserve it in their eyes, which are the wealthy social class. Since the Supreme Court justices, are a group of people that can only be chosen by the federal government themselves with no influence from the public whatsoever, that means that the federal government can use the Supreme Court as another method of protecting and supporting the wealthy, since the Supreme Court Justices will be composed of people that are also apart of the wealthy social class and not the poor, working class.

1. The court system is better suited to protect individual rights than congress or other forms of elected government because its objective is to serve and protect the people based on interpretation of the constitution rather than being influenced by public opinion like most elected officials who are driven to satisfy the public who elected them. An example of this would be an issue with the 1st amendment where somewhere comes under public fire and are trialed for the words they said. The court would simply look at the case from a purely constitutional lenses and come to a decision that aligns with the constitution despite the parties involved.
2. I would agree that the Supreme Court is a sort of anti-democratic part of our government because of the amount of governance that each judge possess and for an unfair amount of time. The fact that the judges are appointed rather than elected, leads to the judges serving more for the capitalist rather than to the workers. Additionally, it makes it difficult to become a judge because instead of instilling yourself with the people, to have a chance at being appointed, you have to be in good favor with the president when he appoints judges. The fact that they serve indefinite terms that only end when a judge leaves, it also leads to judges overstaying their welcome on the court, and them losing touch with the law. Ultimately, the appointee system is very unusual because it stands out from our democratic government and should be replaced.

1. The court system can protect individual rights better than elected branches like Congress or the President. This is because judges in the courts focus on interpreting the law fairly, without needing to worry about being re-elected or making popular choices. Elected officials, on the other hand, sometimes focus more on what will get them votes, which may not always protect every individual’s rights equally.

For example, think about a case where a person’s right to free speech is threatened by a new law passed by Congress. If that law becomes popular with voters, Congress might not want to change it. But a judge in the court system can rule that the law goes against the Constitution, even if it’s unpopular to do so. This way, the court system helps protect individual rights without worrying about political pressure.

2. Federal judges, like those in the Supreme Court, are appointed instead of being elected. This is why some people say that the Supreme Court is “anti-democratic” because the people don’t directly choose these judges. I agree that it seems less democratic because we, the people, don’t have a direct say in who becomes a judge. However, there is a reason for this.

The framers of the Constitution, like James Madison in “Federalist #10,” worried about what he called “the tyranny of the majority” — where one big group of people could push for laws that may hurt smaller groups. By appointing judges instead of electing them, the court system can focus on protecting the rights of all individuals, including minorities. This setup helps keep a balance between popular opinion and the fair treatment of every person in society, no matter their background.

1. the court system protects the human rights because they are separate from political views. They put all their focus on the constitution and don’t get easily influenced. Since they focus on the constitution they follow the law which supports humans rights.
2. One example is the Texas v. Johnson where the Supreme Court defends the right to burn the American flag because its a form of free speech, this shows that the court supports human rights.
3. the federalist no. 78 helps the court system review laws to make sure they are constitutional without worrying about political opinions but more focused on individual freedom.

1. I believe the court system is better at protecting individual rights than elected officials like Congress or the President because the courts are independent and not swayed by politics or public opinion. Judges serve for life, so they do not have to worry abou getting re-elected, which allows them to focus on applying the law fairly and impartially. The courts also have the power of judicial review, meaning they can overturn laws or actions that violate the Constitution or peoples rights, even if those laws are passed by elected officials. This independence is crucial for protecting individual rights from being ignored for political reasons. For example, courts can protect minority groups who might not have enough political power to secure fair treatment from elected officials. A well-known example of the court system protecting individual rights is Brown V. Board of Education. When the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. At the time, many elected officials in Southern states supported segregation, but the court stepped in to protect the rights of African American children, even though the decision was unpopular with many people. This shows how the court system can act as as safeguard against laws or actions that harm people’s rights, even when they are supported by elected leaders. In conclusion, I think the court system is better equipped to protect individual rights than the elected branches of government because it operates independently and can block laws that infringe on constitutional rights. The courts serve as an important check on the power of elected officials, ensuring that individual rights upheld even when political pressures might push for unjust policies. 
2. I don’t necessarily agree that the Supreme Court is an anti-democratic part of our government, but I understand why some people might view in that way. The fact that federal judges, including the Supreme Court justices, are appointed rather than elected means they are not directly accountable to the voters, which is a hallmark of democratic systems. This lack of electoral control contrasts with elected officials like the President or Congress members, who must respond to voter preferences. However, the reason for appointing judges rather than electing them is to protect the independence of the judiciary. If judges were elected, they might be influenced by public opinion or political pressures, which could undermine their ability to rule impartially based on the law, especially in cases involving constitutional rights. This system is similar to what Madison argued in Federalist #10, where he warned about the dangers of factions and how a republic with an independent judiciary can help control the harmful effects of majoritarian rule. The appointment process ensures that judges are chosen for their merit and experience, not their popularity or ability to campaign. While this may seem undemocratic, it helps maintain a judiciary that can make long term, stable decisions without being swayed by electoral politics. Additionally, since Presidents, who are elected by the people, appoint judges and Senators confirm them, the system still has democratic legitimacy. Ultimately, I believe the appointment system balances democracy with the need for an impartial judiciary that can protect individual rights and uphold the Constitution, even when the pubic opinion or political factions might oppose it. This process helps ensure that the courts remain a safeguard for rights and justice, free from the immediate pressures of the democratic process.