The court system is better suited to protect the individual than the elected branches of government in several ways. Firstly, courts are designed to interpret and apply the law, not to make it. This means they can provide a more nuanced and individualized response to cases, considering the specific circumstances and context of each case. Secondly, courts are independent and impartial, meaning they are not influenced by political pressures or biases. This allows them to make decisions that are fair and just, rather than being swayed by political considerations. 

An example of this can be seen in the case of civil rights. The Supreme Court has played a key role in advancing civil rights in the United States, with landmark decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education, which ended segregation in public schools, and Roe v. Wade, which established a woman’s right to an abortion. These decisions were made by judges not influenced by political considerations but able to apply the law in a way that protected individual rights. 

As for the Supreme Court, it is not an anti-democratic part of our government. This way of choosing judges in federal courts is to ensure they are not influenced by political considerations. This is important because it allows them to make decisions based on the law and justice, rather than on political pressures or biases. 

The discussion of “Federalist #10” suggests that the elite class plays a leading role in our government system. This could be a reason for the way of choosing judges in federal courts, as it ensures that those who are most knowledgeable and experienced in the law are the ones making decisions. This is not anti-democratic, but rather a way to ensure that the decisions made by our courts are the best possible ones. 

1. Compared to democratic systems of government, the judicial system is better suited to protect individual rights because of its independence, checks and balances, legal knowledge, and availability of justice. Individual rights are protected from unfair influence by judicial independence, which guarantees that decisions are made based on legal principles rather than political concerns. Courts have the authority to reject laws or executive actions that restrict constitutional rights, thereby limiting government overreach through the system of checks and balances. Because of their legal training, judges are able to explain and carry out the law in an unbiased manner, guaranteeing that everyone is treated fairly regardless of political pressure. Furthermore, people can contest government decisions and seek redress for grievances through the legal system, which helps to hold elected officials responsible.The well known case of Brown v. Board of Education can be seen as an important example of this purpose. In it, the Supreme Court’s ruling to abolish racial segregation in schools showed that it could uphold individual liberty even in the face of governmental resistance.
2. Since judges are not elected, unlike presidents or members of Congress, the Supreme Court and federal courts are not democratic. Rather, the President appoints them and the Senate confirms them. Since they are guaranteed reelection once they are in office, they may not necessarily reflect the views of the majority of voters. This implies that the public has little influence on the appointment of judges, which is anti-democratic. It’s as if a select few influential individuals choose who gets to make important decisions that affect everyone else.

1. The ways the court system to protect the individual is because the other systems such as congress and the president go through a lot of changing/transition and their focus primary on the other governments and how they run with the “court system” they take the time to listen to the people with focusing on the laws and listening well in the court hearings. An example is when someone is trying to get a law passed or have an idea the main government wont listen but the courts will
2. i do not agree with the government is a anti democratic part of our government because in a way i see it as a unfair advantage because its not a mix of both democratic and republicans it creates a situation where ones party decisions are praised and liked and the other are more disliked so with this it creates many disadvantages. the reason for this way of choosing judges is because when they choose the judges they need to have a strong government that help keep the danger away and with this the judges can do so. the upper class plays a leading role in the government because they have a lot of money and there are times where politicians needs funding for their campaign and the upper class helps pay a lot for that person to have a possibility to get that position

1. The court system is better suited to protect the individual, as judges are appointed based on their qualifications and expertise. Independently, the courts make decisions based on the law and constitution without the influence of political pressures. The courts interpret the constitution and laws, ensuring that individuals’ rights are protected from government and determining whether government actions are unconstitutional. The court adversarial system allows the prosecution v. the defense to present their arguments in court to be decided by a 3rd party (judge or jurors). For example, In 1973, the Roe v. Wade case was presented to the Supreme Court, establishing it’s a woman’s right to have an abortion under the constitutional right to privacy, ruling that a woman’s decision to have an abortion is protected by the constitutional right to privacy implied by Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Since 1790, the Supreme Court has been predominantly wealthy white males. It consists of nine justices: one chief justice, the highest-ranking judge, and eight associate justices. All judges are appointed by the president and senate and receive lifetime terms, assuring that partisan politics do not influence them and that they make decisions based on the law and constitution. But how can that be successfully done if there’s little to no diversity among the justices and the only way to be appointed to the seat is for a current member to either step down or die? In 1967, Thurgood Marshall was the first African-American appointed to his seat as associate justice. In history, only two African-American men and six women have served as associate justices; two are Hispanic and African-American. 

1. 
   The court system is better suited to protect the individual than the elected branches of the government because they don’t need any opinions from anyone to make decisions. Unlike the elected branches of government. We vote to choose who wins to be president, we also vote for other things that should or should not be done. This is why the court system is better to protect the individual.

2. I’m not really sure if the supreme court is an anti-democratic part of our government. I think they side with both 

The court system is better suited for protecting individuals instead of elected officials because the judges and sometimes juries judge you without biases. As elected officials may have biases due to their political ideology or other biases. An example would be the Miranda v. Arizona case where Miranda was arrested for rape and kidnapping. Even though there was clear evidence that he do these things he won an appeal with the supreme court stating that his fifth and sixth amendment was violated. But he was still convicted of his crimes, this shows that the court still heard him out despite the evidence and still won an appeal but still went to prison for his crimes.

I do not believe that the supreme court is necessarily anti-democratic but I do believe that leans more to conservative ideology than liberally. The reason judges are chosen this way because the president wants someone who can align with their ideals and in most cases that has been conservative ideas. Though this may be the case sometimes more conservative based judges may lean toward liberal ideas in cases and over time.

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.

I believe one way the court system is better suited to protect the individual rather than elected branches of government is because they are less susceptible to political swings and pressures of political opinion. For example, because the President and even a smaller position like mayors are elected by the people to serve a short (four years) period of time, they are more susceptible to the political swings of their times; plus, in order to gain votes and support, they need to build their campaigns around certain political beliefs which falls in either conservative or liberal side. Once elected, these representants need to govern for the majority and make decisions to help the community as a whole: and sometimes, on democracy, the majority can infringe risk in minorities. On the other hand, the judges on the Supreme Court are appointed and serve their positions for life, which means they don’t have to make political promises, and are less susceptible to political swings and public pressure. Also, because of the very nature of the judiciary branch, the judges’ work (on all levels) is to protect individual rights and to make sure the Constitution is being applied in a fair way to everyone. For example, in one of the cases mentioned during the readings, Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decided that the segregation on schools was unconstitutional – an example of the court system protecting the individual.

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 agree with the idea that the Supreme Court is anti-democratic in parts. I like the idea of judges serving for a long period (even though I don’t think people in any branch of the government should be working past a certain age), because I do think this is a way that help them make decisions without being so influenced by the political events of specific times and gives them experience. I also think that being appointed by the President gives them credibility, but I do believe the people should have a saying in this choice – maybe the people could elect a small group from which the President would pick one? I also believe this way is anti-democratic for reflecting a decision made the Founding Fathers, based on a vision that the people should not have certain powers.

This way of choosing judges was designed by the Founding Father because they did not want the voters to exert pressure on the judges – they wanted to make sure they (the judges) would apply the rules fairly. However, even though this sounds very good on paper, it reflects the way of the Founding Father to think that the masses (the poor class) did not have the mental faculties necessary to make good decisions, and thus they should the least power in choosing their representatives as possible. In Federalist #10, Madison says: “no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity”. This reflects his idea that, if the poor class (which was the majority) reached a certain level of power, then they would rule accordingly to their own interests – that would go against the interests of the wealthy class.

Discussion Board Response 11.1

Discussion Response

1. Compared to the elected branches of government, the court system is frequently more equipped to safeguard individuals for several reasons, including how they resolve conflict, defense against the oppression of the majority, rationality and independence, and court examination authority. Courts have the power to check whether the actions taken by the executive branches, such as presidents and mayors, and legislation approved by the legislative branches, such as Congress and city legislatures, are constitutional. Courts have the authority to overturn laws or policies that violate the rights of individuals. For instance, the Supreme Court upheld individual reproductive rights when it decided in the historic Roe v. Wade decision that restrictions against abortion violated a woman’s fundamental right to privacy. It is required of judges to interpret and implement the law impartially, free from the influence of public opinion or political factors. Judges are appointed for life and are supposed to be immune from outside pressures, unlike elected officials, who could be influenced by partisan or electoral concerns. Because of their independence, they are better equipped to protect individual rights by basing their decisions only on the merits of the case and the rules of justice. Overall, the court system is an essential institution for defending individual rights and liberties against intrusions by the elected branches of government because of its devotion to the rule of law, fairness, and independence from political influence.

2. It can depend on your point of view to label the federal court system and the Supreme Court in particular—as anti-democratic, and there is a complicated discussion about this. But I contend that characterizing the Supreme Court as fundamentally anti-democratic oversimplifies its function and fails to consider the reasoning behind the federal judge nomination process. The federal judiciary was intended by the founding fathers to be immune to the political influences that elected officials frequently encounter. They intended to shield the court from the whims of the majority or short-term public opinion by appointing judges for life tenure. Judges are free to interpret the law in accordance with the Constitution and its strengths and weaknesses rather than being influenced by political or electoral considerations because of their independence. James Madison argued for steps to safeguard the rights of minorities and cautioned against the dangers of dominant factions, as covered in Federalist #10. By guaranteeing that judges are independent of public opinion, the nomination procedure contributes to the upholding of this concept. Judges can be chosen through the appointment process based on their skills and abilities rather than their political affiliation. Presidents usually nominate people with a wealth of legal experience, academic accomplishments, and in-depth legal knowledge. This guarantees that the judiciary is composed of people who have the knowledge required to fairly decide complicated legal matters. Furthermore, the Senate’s confirmation procedure offers a chance for a comprehensive investigation and assessment of the nominee’s credentials. Federal judges hold office for life, unless they decide to retire or are impeached, in contrast to elected officials who may have fixed terms and must run for reelection. By guaranteeing that court rulings are maintained over time and guarding against the politicization of the courts, this gives the judiciary stability and continuity. Furthermore, the appointment method permits a gradual replacement of judges, guaranteeing prompt filling of vacancies without the need for regular elections. Despite appearing less democratic when compared to other government elections, the selection procedure for federal judges upholds the democratic ideal of having an independent court that is competent to enforce the law. This selection process is intended to protect against the possibility that judicial decisions would be swayed by shifting public opinion or the interests of a specific socioeconomic class. Rather, the emphasis is on making sure judges have the training, experience, and independence needed to carry out their constitutional duties. Therefore, even while the Supreme Court’s makeup may not be explicitly democratic, it nevertheless plays a significant role in defending individual rights and democratic ideals within the confines of the Constitution.