For the individual, the U.S. court system can focus more clearly on the issues surrounding them and the protection of their rights, as opposed to the legislature and executive branches of government. This is because the judiciary can shape policy through court rulings and decisions. Through judicial review, the courts have the authority to declare laws or executive actions unconstitutional, thereby effectively protecting individuals when the elected branches overstep their bounds. For example, in Roe v. Wade, a court case where Norma McCorvey, using the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” alleged that Texas’s abortion laws were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protected the right to have an abortion (overturned in 2022 in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization). The U.S. court system is the most effective platform for those individuals who believe they have been wronged or have had their rights violated.
The Supreme Court, in the literal sense, can be described as non-democratic. Unlike the president of the United States or any member of Congress, federal judges are appointed, not elected. They serve for life, and last well beyond the presidential term for which they were appointed, and they are not accountable to the voters. This structure can feel anti-democratic because it removes direct control from the people. To understand why this structure was accepted, it is important to go back to James Madison’s Federalist No. 10. As written in his arguments, Madison feared what he called the “tyranny of the majority.” He believed that if all parts of government were directly controlled by voters, then majorities, especially those without property, might vote for laws that threatened the interests of the wealthy, property-owning minority. I believe that the law should always be unbiased and unrelenting, but merciful. A balance between punishment and rehabilitation. With respect to this, I believe a selection of judges should be recommended by POTUS and then finally elected through the public vote. The judges should then serve for life. This system, I believe, is the most fair; the system of checks and balances is held up as the president/governor can select a list of judges, and the public is satisfied as their voice is heard.
One thought on “Discussion post 11.1”
Hi Daniyal, I really like how you explained the role of the courts and how they can protect people when other parts of government go too far. Your example about Roe v. Wade helped show how the courts can step in and make sure individual rights are defended, even when the issue is very emotional or political. Your explanation of why the Founders designed it this way made a lot of sense. Your post clearly showed why independence in the judiciary is important and how it helps keep the system balanced. I love your explaining,
Hi Daniyal, I really like how you explained the role of the courts and how they can protect people when other parts of government go too far. Your example about Roe v. Wade helped show how the courts can step in and make sure individual rights are defended, even when the issue is very emotional or political. Your explanation of why the Founders designed it this way made a lot of sense. Your post clearly showed why independence in the judiciary is important and how it helps keep the system balanced. I love your explaining,