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.

The court system is better suited to protect the individual, than are the elected branches of the government in the way that each individual has more than one legal system at his or her disposal to preserve his or her rights. The dual court system provides additional options for seeking assistance. For instance, Ernesto Miranda’s case “The U.S. Supreme Court found for Miranda an extension of his Fifth Amendment protections—a constitutional right to remain silent when faced with police questioning. It was a right he could not get solely from the state courts in Arizona, but one those courts had to honor nonetheless.” This demonstrates how an individual like Miranda was heard.

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 supreme court is anti-democratic due to the reason that it cannot be biased, in order for the court to function. When a judge is biased or prejudiced, the outcome may be a judgment that is not fair or impartial to one of the parties in the case.

Leave a Reply