- 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.)
1. The court system is often better suited to protect individual rights than elected branches of government for several reasons. Firstly, judges must be impartial and base their decisions on the law and constitution rather than political pressures or public opinion. This allows them to protect individual rights even when unpopular or politically inconvenient. Secondly, courts have the power of judicial review, enabling them to strike down laws and executive actions that violate constitutional rights. This serves as a crucial check on the powers of the legislative and executive branches. Lastly, courts rely on legal precedents, which provide consistency and stability in protecting individual rights. This helps ensure that similar cases are treated similarly over time. For example, the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) is a prime example of the court system protecting individual rights. The Supreme Court’s decision to declare state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional was a significant step in the fight against racial segregation despite considerable opposition from many elected officials and segments of the public.
2. Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, are appointed rather than elected. This has led to debates about the democratic nature of the judiciary. One argument is that the lack of direct accountability makes the federal courts anti-democratic, especially the Supreme Court. Since federal judges are not elected, they are not publicly accountable. This can be seen as undemocratic because the public has no direct say in their selection or removal. Additionally, federal judges serve lifetime appointments, which means they can make decisions that affect the country for decades without being subject to regular review by the electorate.
However, the appointment system for federal judges is designed to insulate the judiciary from political pressures and factionalism, allowing them to make decisions based on the law and constitution rather than popular opinion. This concept is supported by James Madison’s arguments in Federalist #10, where he advocated for a system that could mitigate factions’ effects and prevent any group from gaining too much power. The appointment process aims to select individuals with the necessary legal expertise and to ensure judicial independence. This helps maintain a judiciary that can uphold the rule of law and protect minority rights against the tyranny of the majority. In conclusion, while appointing federal judges can be considered anti-democratic, it protects the judiciary’s independence and ability to safeguard individual rights, free from political pressures and factional influences. This system aims to balance the need for a fair and impartial judiciary with the principles of democratic governance.
The court system is often better suited to protect individual rights because it is designed to be an impartial and independent guardian of the Constitution and laws. Unlike elected officials, judges are not swayed by popular opinion or political pressures, allowing them to focus on upholding individual rights without the influence of the electoral process.
One notable example is the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The Supreme Court’s decision to declare segregation in public schools unconstitutional was a huge step in protecting individual rights, especially for African Americans. At the time, many legislators were influenced by racist attitudes and resisted desegregation. If the question of desegregation had been left to the elected branches, change may have been much slower or even stalled altogether due to political considerations and resistance from constituents. Courts, however, focus specifically on legal and constitutional principles, providing a crucial check on the powers of the elected branches and ensuring that individual rights are safeguarded, even against majority opposition.