- 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.
The court system in New York City has a job to protect individuals and make sure nothing goes against the constitution, whereas the elected branches of government are more to create and enforce the new legislation. The Supreme Court Judges are not impacted by the popular conclusion. They are not chosen by the individuals and they serve deep-rooted terms. Along these lines, they are more ready to take on dubious cases than chose authorities. A good example can be Miranda v. Arizona, setting up the rule that all criminal suspects should be instructed concerning their rights before interrogation. Presently viewed as standard police procedure, they reserve the privilege to stay quiet. Anything you say can, and will, be utilized against you in the courtroom. they reserve the privilege of an attorney. On the off chance that you can’t bear the cost of one, one will be selected to you, has been heard so often in television and film shows that it has become nearly antique. They chose to separate however the equivalent is characteristically inconsistent. They took on a dubious point to ensure the individuals even though it was anything but a politically well-known choice. While the U.S. The Supreme Court and state supreme courts apply control over numerous people while evaluating laws or pronouncing demonstrations of different branches illegally, they become especially significant when a solitary individual precedes them with a supposed wrong. Sorting out fights, accumulating specific vested party support, and changing laws through the authoritative and official branches are for the most part conceivable, however, an individual is well on the way to discover the courts most appropriate to break down points of interest. As a major aspect of balanced governance, courts shield the Constitution from ruptures by different parts of government, and they secure individual rights against cultural and legislative persecution.
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.)
The US constitution states that the federal judges can hold office for a lifetime “during good behavior”. It has been argued that good behavior is to make it clear that the federal judges can retain office for a lifetime. They can only be removed through proper constitutional apparatus. It further states that judicial appointment by the president should potentially survive his administration which will provide them a political legacy. Furthermore, it is also assumed that the appointment power by the president allows them to identify candidates and appoint judges who will favor the policies and practices of the president. Therefore, the ‘good behavior clause’ has always been a controversial topic of the US constitution. In my opinion the Supreme Court on the other hand is the apex court and has got all the powers provided in the constitution. It is above the other two branches in terms of power and is the final judicial authority in the US. The order given by the Supreme Court is the final one and no other court can overturn the decision or order of the Supreme Court and the parties have to abide by that judgement and respect it. I agree The Supreme Court is a protector of liberty and democracy and not a potential threat to them since the Supreme Court acts for provision of democratic rights to the citizens and also acts for their liberty and freedom. It acts as a protector of liberty, freedom and democracy and provides judgement that is in sync with the democratic rights of citizens and for their upliftment and development as well.
