- Court systems are better suited to handle individual rights being that the State Courts handle disputes and conflicts for the people at state level such as, Criminal Activity, Rape, Murder, and violation of in-state laws. The federal courts also seek justice for the people due to the fact they deal with rights for people outside of state-level. The Federal Courts deal with conflicts between each state, which also take part in individual rights. They also take part in ethnical rights (Native American), patents, and copy rights. Elected branches aren’t suitable to protect individual rights because they respond mostly to political pressure, they make decision without worry because they are appointed for life. They focus on constitutional rights despite public opinion. An example would be Miranda vs. Board of education for the courts aspect of this paragraph.
- The supreme court can be deemed to be anti-democratic and I agree. They disallow popular opinions from people, while allowing the government to focus on translating the laws, this is seen to be anti democratic since the people don’t have a say or a vote for who is able to be a judge. The judges are chosen this way to prevent “Tyranny of the Majority”, in other words to not discriminate against minority groups, or the social pressure of ones who have yet to get a clear opinion. Their goal is to get, appoint judges who are educated and experienced to make decisions based on the constitution for the protection of rights.
One thought on “Aniyah Kitson – Discussion Board 11.1”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hello Aniyah, you made some great points about how the courts, rather than elected branches, are better equipped to defend individual rights since they prioritize fairness and constitutional principles over political pressure. Although I agree that the Supreme Court may appear “anti-democratic” due to the fact that judges are not elected by the general public, I can understand how this serves to uphold minority rights and avoid the “Tyranny of the Majority.” Miranda v. Arizona serves as a good illustration of how courts protect constitutional rights even in the face of divergent public opinion.