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; pr the Mayor of NYC and the NYC City Assembly)? Given an example to illustrate your argument.

The Supreme Court does not have opinions or influences from the public. As the Supreme Court are elected through vacancy on the Courts and the senate vote to confirm the individual. Executive and legislative branches play a big role in composition of the Supreme Court. A good example to showcase would be Brown v. Board of Education. With the case of Brown v. Board of Education, the outcome was the Supreme Court ruled that separating children in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional.

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 not believe that the Supreme Court is an anti democratic part of our government. I believe the reason as to why this is the way of choosing judges in federal courts is to ensure a independent judiciary and to protect judges from partisan pressures. I feel as we the public do often give a lot of option as to what outcomes do come from the courts, this is to ensure a non clouded judgement from political pressure when deciding cases.

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.

This is why the bill of rights and the constitution were made. The court system follows due process where we have a chance to protect ourselves against government, society. The bill of rights are there to protect us in mostly everything illegal not giving the government complete control over our lives and following what is just and fair .

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.)

yes I agree.I believe we should also have a vote in who our judges are as well just as how we are able to vote for the president etc.. Judges have way too much power for decision making in a persons life.A position like that very delicate and the right people have to be in place for matters like of that sort.This is why three branches were made so one branch wouldn’t more superior than the other but come together and to make it as fair as it can be for the people.

1. 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.
2. 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.

1. It is better suited to protect individual rights, rather than the elected branches, because it is truly independent, truly impartial, and insulated from popular politics. Whereas Elected officials must always be concerned with voters and political interests, judges can focus on what the Constitution and the law require. Courts offer an added protection to the rights of minorities, too, against the popular will. A sterling example of this is the case of Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, whereby the U.S. Supreme Court nullified racial segregation in public schools against strong political resistance from the states and localities. This case vividly demonstrates how courts can protect individuals from government actions that violate constitutional rights when elected officials might be unwilling or unable to take action due to political pressures.
2. In fact, a procedure of appointment, rather than election, was devised for federal judges as a check against the possible undue influences of factionalism and special interest groups on the courts. Appointed judges are expected to be knowledgeable of the law, experienced in its practice, and to view their appointments as long term opportunities to shape the meaning of laws and constitutional principles, independent of the whims of an electorate that may change its mind from one election to another. It is also fair to conclude that although the Supreme Court should not necessarily be held accountable through elections to the public, it is nonetheless in fact a part of democracy. The Insulation of the judiciary from political pressures is, through the intellectually sound creation of the framers via the Constitution, one sure fire way of protecting individual rights and upholding the rule of law, both constituent components of democracy. The courts achieve a balance in powers so that no one group-a majority or powerful fractions-infringes on constitutional rights, while meting out justice in a fair and equitable manner.

The courtroom docket gadget is more potent at shielding personal rights than elected branches of the presidency because courts are unbiased and no longer inspired by political pressures or famous demands. An instance is the Brown v. Board of Education case, wherein the Supreme Court dominated racial segregation in public faculties regardless of competition from elected officials. The Supreme Court’s independence allows it to prioritize personal rights over most hobbies or influential groups.

The Supreme Court is considered “anti-democratic” because justices are appointed, now no longer elected, and serve for life. Critics argue this loss of direct responsibility to the electorate needs to be revised. Still, the framers of the Constitution designed the judiciary in this manner to shield a person’s rights and save the tyranny of the bulk. The judiciary’s independence from political pressures guarantees selections are primarily based totally on regulation and the Constitution in preference to public opinion or political expediency.

While appointing judges may also appear undemocratic, it was meant to save you selections inspired by means of political recognition or partisanship. The loss of direct responsibility to the electorate additionally examines the electricity of the legislature and government branches, keeping the stability of electricity. In conclusion, the courtroom docket gadget’s potential to perform independently and shield against the tyranny of the bulk aligns with the framers’ imagination and prescient of a gadget that safeguards personal liberties and forestalls excesses of famous democracy.

COURT SYSTEM

1. The judiciary often displays a far better knack for the protection of individual rights compared to the elected branches of government, for a few fundamental reasons. Generally, however, judges are duty bound to be impartial, basing decisions on legal statutes and constitutional law but not yielding to political pressure or public sentiment. It is this apoliticalism that means they can actively defend individual rights in situations where such defense is invidious or politically fraught. Second, the courts have the ability of judicial review, the power to strike down legislative and executive actions that violate constitutional rights. This function is a vital buffer against the powers of the legislature and the executive. Finally, reliance on established legal precedent fosters consistency and stability in the protection of individual rights, thus guaranteeing that similar cases will be adjudicated consistently over time. Perhaps the prime example of the judiciary’s contribution to the protection of individual rights is the one featured in the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The Supreme Court’s ruling, which effectively stated that state laws mandating the segregation of public schools for African American and Caucasian students were unconstitutional, was a key turning point in the battle against racial segregation, despite massive opposition from many elected officials and segments of society.

2. Federal judges, even Supreme Court justices, are appointed, not elected, and this has led to discussions of the democratic validity of the judicial system. A view, for example, is that the absence of direct responsibility makes the federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court, intrinsically undemocratic. Because federal judges are appointed and not elected, they lack public accountability, a feature that is arguably undemocratic because the public has no say in their appointment or removal. Furthermore, the lifetime tenure given to federal judges allows them to make decisions that could shape the nation for very long periods without the need for frequent electoral checkups. The procedure for the appointment of federal judges is exactly so structured as to isolate the judiciary from any undue political pressure and partisan quarrels, in order that the judges could at times base their decisions not only on the logic of precedent and litigation, but on the factual, legal and constitutional law framework of the nation.

1. Individual rights are frequently better protected by the legal system, particularly the federal courts, than by elected officials like the president or members of Congress. Given that judges are not chosen by the general public, this may initially seem strange. In fact, though, that’s one of the reasons they excel in this work. Consider this: elected leaders are constantly concerned with the opinions of the electorate. Even if their decisions are the right ones, they may refrain from making them because they want to be re-elected. In contrast, federal judges are appointed for life. They may concentrate on interpreting the law and defending rights without worrying about public opinion since they are not concerned about winning the next election.

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court held that defendants in criminal cases have the right to legal representation under the Sixth Amendment, even if they are unable to pay for one. This decision is an example of how the judicial system upholds individual rights. Low-income people frequently had to face criminal prosecution without legal representation prior to this ruling since many states did not offer public defenders for defendants in non-capital cases. Due to his inability to pay for counsel, Florida man Clarence Earl Gideon was compelled to represent himself in a felony trial. He petitioned the Supreme Court after being found guilty, claiming that his right to a fair trial had been infringed by his lack of counsel. The Court concurred, holding that having legal counsel is crucial to a fair trial and to defending one’s rights in the judicial system. Since it required funding for public defense, which may be politically unpopular or financially difficult, elected leaders had not addressed this issue in every state. But thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision, states are now required to offer legal representation to defendants who cannot afford it. This greatly advances the protection of disadvantaged individuals’ rights and makes sure that justice is accessible to everyone, not just those who can afford it.

This does not imply that elected authorities cannot uphold rights or that the courts are infallible. However, it demonstrates how the legal system, somewhat isolated from public opinion, can occasionally be more effective in defending individual rights, particularly for marginalized groups who may not have much political clout. It’s one way our government attempts to strike a balance between upholding everyone’s rights and majority rule.

2. A common criticism of the federal court system in the US government is that it is anti-democratic, especially the Supreme Court. Federal judges are appointed, not elected, and serve lifelong terms, in contrast to Presidents, Members of Congress, and other elected authorities. They are shielded from direct public accountability by this framework, which also permits them to make choices that might go against popular opinion. This anti-democratic nature is further reinforced by the Supreme Court’s ability to overturn laws passed by elected officials through the process of judicial review.

Nonetheless, the Founding Fathers deliberately established this system to fulfill particular functions within the larger context of American democracy. James Madison stressed the necessity of mediating conflicts between conflicting societal interests and safeguarding against the perils of factions, as covered in Federalist No. 10. By protecting minority rights and upholding a long-term view of constitutional values, the federal judiciary—which is free from direct democratic pressures—was meant to carry out this function. The lifetime tenure and appointment procedure were designed to guarantee that these important positions would be filled by highly competent people, frequently with prestigious professional and educational backgrounds.

Since there are legitimate worries about the federal courts’ anti-democratic orientation, it’s crucial to understand that their design was meant to strike a compromise between long-term stability, fundamental rights protection, and democratic responsiveness. In the face of shifting political trends, the court was intended to act as a stabilizing force and a check on the possible tyranny of the majority. However, discussions concerning whether this system still fulfills its intended function or whether changes are required to better conform to contemporary democratic values have heated up as the courts’ influence over policy has grown and the nomination process has become more politicized.

One reason why the court system is better for protecting individual rights is that the judges are usually in power for their entire life which essentially means they can’t be kicked out if the public disagrees with a decision. It’s not like the presidency in which we vote to remove/elect someone new based on performance. Which in practice means that a judge can defend minorities without risk of being fired.

I think its not because if we had a similar system as the presidency it would mean that the judges would be actively changing basad on public vote and make it harder for judges to focus on rule of law because they want to appeal to the public so they can be voted in for a second term. Judges serving a life term means that they don’t need to worry about losing their jobs because of the public and can simply focus on applying the law in the court rooms.