1. To answer the first question, the way that the court system is structured is with the main purpose of being able to protect an individual’s rights. They conduct these protections in a much more efficient and effective way when even compared to the different branches of government. In contrast to congress, the president, or the rest of the elected branches of government, the court system is able to function by covering for public opinion. Because of this specific focus that the courts have, it is able to allow judges to have their undivided focus with the constitutional merits that reside in each case without worrying about the consequences of their decisions. The court system has the jurisdiction to reexamine laws and/or actions as a way to make sure they don’t violate individual rights. An example of this is how the supreme court approaches voting rights, and through that, is able to take stances that could be challenging politically for officials that were elected to support. 

2. With federal judges in comparison to the president, mayors, and members of congress are appointed rather than elected into the position. With these rules in mind, people have perceived the court system as being “anti-democratic” due to the lack of an actual election for those in those positions like a president. Although there is a reasoning behind these positions being appointed in this system and the reasoning behind that is from the lifetime of their terms in comparison to the previous positions of power. These federal judges are appointed serving lifetime terms so it allows for decisions that aren’t influenced by public opinion and making choices that correlate to what they think is the right decision under the constitution. Within this system, it guarantees even unfavorable viewpoints a fair perspective which helps to support balance in relation to justice. Although it may appear not as democratic, having these judges appointed helps to avoid choices being made from recent public opinion and make proper decisions for the future.

1. The court system is better suited to protect the individual than are the elected branches of government because they don’t have to please many people, they’re only protecting the individual. They are making decisions based on the case not by people’s opinions. An example is the supreme court justices are not influenced by the public.
2.  I agree they are because the judges are elected by people and sometimes they make decisions that go against the majority of people’s opinions. I believe they choose judges this way so they don’t have to face judgment against the public. 

1. The court system is better at protecting individuals because it is independent and neutral. Courts are not swayed by public opinion or election pressure. Judges can focus on the law and the Constitution, rather than trying to please voters or special interest groups. In contrast, elected officials like Congress members, the President, or mayors are influenced by what will help them get re-elected. This can lead to decisions that favor the majority, sometimes at the expense of individual rights.
2. The idea that the Supreme Court is “anti-democratic” comes from the fact that justices are not elected by the people. Instead, they are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. This means the public doesn’t directly choose them, unlike the President or members of Congress. The framers of the Constitution designed the system this way because they were worried that special interest groups would influence the government. They wanted a court that could make decisions based on the Constitution, not public opinion or election pressures. This was to protect minority rights, even if the majority disagreed. Judges are appointed for life to remain impartial. This allows them to make fair decisions, without worrying about re-election. While this may seem undemocratic, it was meant to avoid political pressures and protect individual rights.

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.

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.)