DB 11.1

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.

In my point of view, the court system is better suited to protect individuals because they operate separetely from social pressure and personal popularity problems like Mayors, Congress etc face. As an example, A clear example is the case of Brown v. Board of Education . During the time of that case, racial segregation in public schools was supported by majorities in many states and by elected officials. Congress and state legislatures were unwilling to act. The Supreme Court ruled that segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, protecting the rights of Black students even though the decision was highly unpopular in many parts of the country.

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.)

In my point of view, yes. Appointed judges that serve for life are an anti-democratic approach in our government, because usually the person appointed is someone that shares same ideas and goals as the president that is appointing that judge, knowling that the ruling will be on their favor. Thinking back of the federalist #10, it is also clear that this decision is designed to be like this, as there are multiple ways to make the mass and majority of people to feel like they have power over certain situations, but in reality the government, appointed people and judges are part of a very small elite group of people, and they intentionally don’t want voting to shake that power.

1. Because the court system is based on fairness and justice instead of popularity or politics, it does a better job of protecting people’s rights. Judges don’t have to run for office or get votes, so they can make decisions based on the Constitution and what they think is right, even if it goes against what most people want. Elected officials, such as mayors or members of Congress, often have to do what the public or their party wants, which can lead to laws that hurt some groups. The courts can stop a law that unfairly targets a minority group in a city, for example. That’s why the court system is so important: it can protect people when the rest of the government doesn’t.
2. Some people think the Supreme Court is anti-democratic because the President chooses the justices and the Senate approves them. They work for life. That means that regular people don’t get to choose who becomes a judge, even though these judges make important decisions that affect everyone. But there is a reason for this setup. It is meant to stop judges from being influenced by what people think or trying to get votes. Judges might care more about making the majority happy than protecting individual rights if they had to run for office like politicians. This is similar to what Federalist #10 says about factions, which are groups that only care about their own interests and don’t care about the rights of others. The court system is meant to slow down that kind of pressure and make sure that laws don’t hurt people who are already weak. The Supreme Court isn’t democratic in the usual way, but it is important for protecting fairness when elected leaders fail. It also shows how powerful the elite class is in politics because they are the ones who pick the judges. So, even though the system isn’t perfect, it was made to keep people safe from the risks of majority rule and political pressure.

1. The court system is better suited to protect an individual rather than the elected branches of government such as Congress, the President, and the mayor of NYC, and the NYC assembly because they have no political pressure unlike the elected branches of government they don’t have to consider public opinion as much and simply abide by the laws. For example, in “13.3 The Federal Court System” it states “Democratic-appointed judges sometimes side with conservatives, just as Republican-appointed judges sometimes side with liberals.” This quote proves that despite a judge’s political stance they don’t let it impact their choice in condemning a defendant. Another way the court system is better suited to protect an individual is that it protects all rights even of minority groups meanwhile the elected branches often prioritize the majority. For example, the case of Ernesto Miranda who was arrested for kidnapping and rape but had his original conviction overturned due to law enforcement’s violating his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights since he wasn’t read his rights or had access to an attorney. 
   
   
   2. I agree with the statement about the Supreme Court being an anti-democratic part of our government because they aren’t  directly chosen by voters but rather appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The reason for this way of choosing judges in federal courts could be to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority. Back in Federalist #10 James Madison among other framers were concerned about having a pure democracy and it leading to the majority oppressing the minority groups through government or rule. Our way of choosing judges in federal court ensures this won’t happen because this prevents the majority from easily controlling or influencing the judiciary. Most importantly it completely prevents political opinion from influencing a judges decision. For example, like it states in  “ The Federal Court System” it states “One of the reasons the framers of the U.S. Constitution included the provision that federal judges would be appointed for life was to provide the judicial branch with enough independence such that it could not easily be influenced by the political winds of the time.” This shows that no matter who our President is at the time whether they’re Republican or Democratic Party.
   

The court system and its role in protecting people

In my opinion, the court system is better to protect the individual because judges are not part of politics like Congress or the President. The court’s job is to make sure the laws follow the Constitution and to stop the government if it goes too far. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court ended school segregation, which was something most politicians didn’t want to touch at that time. That shows how the courts can protect people’s rights even when elected leaders are afraid to.

About how judges are chosen, I think it is both good and bad that they are not elected. It is true that it feels less democratic, because people don’t vote for them. But at the same time, if judges were elected, they might start making decisions to please voters or rich people who fund campaigns. The idea from Federalist No. 10 says that government should protect against factions and selfish interests, so having judges appointed helps keep them more independent from popular pressure.

Even if it’s not perfect, I think this system works because it helps judges focus on fairness, not politics.

1. From what I gathered from the readings, the court system protects the individual better, mainly because judges don’t have to worry about getting voted in or out. Elected people like the president or congress tend to move based on what the majority wants, or what will make them look good politically. Judges aren’t in that cycle, so they can focus on if something is actually constitutional, not just popular. An example of this is Miranda V. Arizona. The state court convicted him easily, but the supreme court stepped in because his rights were violated during questioning. If the federal courts didn’t exist as a separate layer, his confession would’ve stayed even though it wasn’t obtained daily. That case shows how someone who isn’t powerful, popular or well connected can still get their rights protected in the court system, which elected officials do not usually prioritize.
2.  I don’t really see the Supreme Court being unelected as something that makes it anti-democratic. The founders set it up like that on purpose. Madison explains in Federalist No. 10 that majority factions can get out of control fast, because people usually push whatever benefits them even if it hurts smaller groups. If judges had to run for office, they’d end up trying to impress the same majority Madison warned us about. That’s why they get lifetime terms and so they can focus on the Constitution instead of whatever is popular in the moment. The readings also pointed out that the founders expected people from the educated or professional class to handle legal interpretation, since they believed those folks would make more stable decisions than the general public. They wanted judges to be separate from everyday politics so their decisions weren’t influenced by public pressure. And we see how that works in cases like Miranda, who had no money or status but still had his rights protected once the federal courts stepped in. I don’t see the Supreme Court as anti-democratic. I see it as more of a necessary checkpoint to stop the majority from overpowering people’s individual rights

The court system is better suited to protect individual rights than the elected branches of government because judges are guided by the Constitution and the law, rather than public opinion or political pressure. Elected officials, such as members of Congress or mayors, often make decisions based on what the majority of voters want in order to stay in office, which can sometimes harm the rights of individuals or minority groups. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, even though many elected officials in the South supported segregation at the time. This showed how the courts can protect individuals from unfair treatment, even when it is unpopular. Although federal judges are not elected, this system is designed to keep them independent from political influence. As discussed in Federalist No. 10, the Founders wanted to prevent factions and majority rule from threatening individual rights, so they created a judiciary that could act as a neutral guardian of the Constitution. While this makes the courts less democratic in the sense that citizens do not vote for judges, it helps ensure that justice is based on law and principle, not politics or popularity.

The court system is better suited to protect individual rights than the elected branches of government because judges are guided by the Constitution and the law, rather than public opinion or political pressure. Elected officials, such as members of Congress or mayors, often make decisions based on what the majority of voters want in order to stay in office, which can sometimes harm the rights of individuals or minority groups. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, even though many elected officials in the South supported segregation at the time. This showed how the courts can protect individuals from unfair treatment, even when it is unpopular. Although federal judges are not elected, this system is designed to keep them independent from political influence. As discussed in Federalist No. 10, the Founders wanted to prevent factions and majority rule from threatening individual rights, so they created a judiciary that could act as a neutral guardian of the Constitution. While this makes the courts less democratic in the sense that citizens do not vote for judges, it helps ensure that justice is based on law and principle, not politics or popularity.

1. The court system is more reliable in adhering to the individual because they make decisions based of the peoples rights first and foremost. They are not swayed by public opinion, nor do they pay attention to political beliefs or pressure. Their actions are entirely independent from all of that. For example, in the Ernesto Miranda case, the Supreme Court ruled that his Fifth Amendment was violated and was retried. This is a prime example of the court system making decisions based off of our rights. Miranda, being part of a minority and accused of rape and kidnapping, was not discriminated against but was instead listened by the court.

2. The Federal judges, unlike other political figures such as the President, are not appointed by popular vote. Which may add to the anti-democratic notion. I don’t believe the Federal Court is anti-democratic to discriminate, that being said, I still do believe that it is in fact anti-democratic. In “Federalist #10”, it mentioned that the Constitution is being made to prevent powerful factions from rising to the top and dominating the government. If they were to appoint democrats, a progressive faction that gains more people as time goes on, it would risk the possibility of going against the very reason the Constitution was made.

1. The court system is better appropriate to secure individual rights because judges are selected, not elected, allowing them to make choices based on the constitution instead of political pressure or public opinion. Unlike congress or the president, who respond to voters, judges can focus on being fair and just. For example in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), The Supreme Court ended school segregation even though it was despised in many states, protecting individual rights over majority rule.

2. While the Supreme Court is not democratic in the sense that judges are not selected, this independence actually secures democracy. Federalist No. 10 warned against “majority factions” that could hinder minority rights. Because justices serve lifetime terms, they can make decisions based on law, not politics or class interests. This system prevents potent groups from controlling justice and keeps the Constitution as the highest authority, even over public opinion.