Discussion Board 11.1 – Alexa Balbi

  1. The court system in my opinion protects everyone’s rights. As of the case of miranda v. Arizona it was proven that the police had violated amendments that had caused Ernesto guilty of a rape and murder case of a women. However, since the evidence that was provided did not support the case . The Supreme Court helped give Ernesto his rights and protected him by being fair and letting him win the case.

2) The Supreme Court in a sense is a anti-democratic pieces of our government. One of the facts that proves it is is that judges are selected by the president then also have to be accepted by the senate. Pretty much every decision made to become a judge at the Supreme Court or any federal court has to be made within the government.

Zhongquan

1.The court system is better suited to protect the individual, than are the elected branches of government because the U.S. judicial system is a dual court system. Therefore, when the criminal suspect disagrees with the verdict, he can appeal to a higher court.

2. “Many Americans have thus called the federal court’s system, and especially the Supreme Court, anti-democratic PLACES IN OUR GOVERNMENT.” Democracy comes in many forms. If democracy in this sentence refers to direct democracy, then the sentence is entirely correct. If democracy in this context means representative democracy, then the appointment of judges in the United States is in accordance with democratic procedures. The reason for appointing in that way is that legal justice does not require democracy, but rather neutrality. Representative democracy ensures that the judges elected are of a professional standard. If direct democracy is used to elect judges and pilots to positions that require a high level of professionalism, it is possible that a blind man will be voted in as a pilot. So for the U.S., what is the purpose of the system by design? The economic base determines the superstructure. What is the economic basis of the representative capitalist system? — Capitalist private ownership. In a capitalist system, representative democracy prevents the tyranny of the majority and limits the power of government. The purpose of all this is to protect private property from infringement.

D.B 11.1 – Justine Lazdina

#1. The court system is better suited to protect the individual than the elected branches of the government is for multiple reasons:

  1. It not only allows for the individual to sue other individuals, but also government entities if the individual feels they have been wronged in some way.
  2. If the individual chooses to use a jury trial, they will be judges by a jury of their peers rather then elected/appointed officials.
  3. The courts have to follow a precedent made by other similar cases, sans providing a valid reason not to. This makes discrimination within the court system less likely; harder to justify different rulings for similar cases where individual’s creed/race/gender might differ.
  4. Since there are multiple tiers of the judicial system, an individual can appeal the ruling of a lower court and move onto a higher one. Thought his does not mean that the initial ruling will change, still it might allow for the clearing of any rights violations suffered by the individual.

A good example of this is Miranda vs Arizona; a man named Earnest Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape, the court used a written and signed confession by Miranda -obtained while in police custody- in their ruling. He appealed this decision and the Supreme Court ruled that his 5th and 6th Amendment rights -the right to remain silent and the right to counsel- were violated and he was allowed another trial with the exclusion of his confession letter. He was still found guilty the second time around, but this time due to the testimony of witnesses.

This specific court case, Miranda vs Arizona, was especially impactful in the precedent it created. From now individuals confessing to a crime, in the presence of police, first need to sign away their Miranda rights before confessing, otherwise the confession will not be admissible in court.

#2. Since federal judges do not get elected by the people, this technically does make the Federal Court System anti-democratic, or at least, undemocratic.

Federal judges get appointed by first being nominated by the president of the US, and then the senate holds a hearing before deciding if they approve of the nominee, and if they do, they vote to confirm the nominee who then becomes a judge.

This process excludes the general public from a decision that will impact not only their own lives, but possibly the lives of their descendants, since some federal judges serve for life. This leaves the decision making to those with enough money to run for office. It takes millions for individuals to run for state or local electoral office, never mind the amount of money it takes to run for US Presidency. The average citizen simply does not have this type of wealth, and eve if they are able to get it through funding, this leaves them susceptible to the influence of their donors’ interests.

In other words, the system was created by the wealthy for the wealthy in such a way as to ensure the power remains with the wealthy. So that, at the end of the day, their interests, as opposed to the interests of the general public, always remain top priority.

Discussion Board 11.1 SaiLungCash Jeung

  1. The court system is more suitable for protecting an individual than the elected branch of the government, because each person has more than one court system ready to protect his or her rights. For example, the case Miranda v. Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and rape in violation of state law Arrested, he was easily convicted and sentenced to jail, but he continued to appeal to the Supreme Court, and finally found that the police had violated the Fifth Amendment, in the end Miranda won the case. This proves that the court system protects everyone’s rights.

2. I agree that the Supreme Court is an anti-democratic part of our government, because federal judges are not elected by the people, but appointed by the government. And because federal judges are appointed by the government, this has resulted in government officials being protected from it. For example, when a case between a government official and an ordinary citizen is tried in the Supreme Court, the government official will have a certain advantage, because the Supreme Court will protect the interests of the government official.

Nikita Vasilyev – D.B. 11.1

  1. In my opinion, there are two major points that highlight why court system is better suited to protect the individual in comparison with other branches of the government: the duality of the court system and its election procedure that leaves the judicial branch independent of the political climate of the time. When we take the Miranda v. Arizona case, we can see how the duality of the U.S. court system helped protect the constitutional rights of Ernesto Miranda who was convicted and sentenced based on an evidence that was obtained through a violation of the Fifth and Six Amendments. While the issue of guilt or innocence was a matter of the state court, the federal court addressed the constitutional questions raised by Miranda trial. 
  2. If the government is set up to protect the “faculties” of men, we should not be surprised that one of the branches of the government seems to fail to carry the notion of “democracy”. Following the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump, only supported by less than a fifth of the U.S. population, has shaped the Supreme Court by appointing 3 conservative-wing candidates who passed through a Republican Senate. Since the Justices are appointed for life, we are bound to see a conservative Supreme Court that carries the vision of the Republican Party and the capitalist elites that supports it. If we further look at the diversity within the court system, we can easily find the overwhelming majority of courts on federal and state level consists of white people that might not have the insight into the lives of minorities. 

Jasmin Amigon-Discussion post

  1. A way the court system is better suited in protecting individuals than are the elected branches is by the supreme court which is not elected by the people therefore they are uninfluenced in the opinion of the public. Which shows they are willing to solve controversial cases than elected branches of government. A member of congress would not be influenced by public opinion and popular decisions but would go about the case following the law and previous state rulings for the benefit of the individuals. For example, the Brown v. Board of Education case took on a controversial topic in order to protect the people. This shows that they are willing to protect the people even if it’s not a politically popular decision.

2.The supreme court is an anti-democratic part of our government because the ones who have political power or the owning class are the ones who make the final decision. The Supreme Court plays an important role in our constitutional system of government and it’s the highest court and last resort for those seeking justice. The member(s) of the Supreme Court are not nominated by people but by the power the president has and the justices nominated are there to serve for life.  However, this action of appointing judges to fill the federal courts proves how the Supreme Court is an anti-democracy. I think the public should be able to choose whom they think should be a judge in the Supreme Court.

Ignacio on the Federal Court System

1. They are the best suited to protect individuals, because they are the ones who interpret the laws within   the constitution and give sentences equally to the subjects that are under it. Judges must be neutral in their decisions and follow the protocols to not violate any amendments themselves while participating in a trial. The advantage that people under the constitution have is that there is a dual-court system where there is plenty of room for everybody to look for justice depending on the case.

A good example is the case Miranda v. Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was sentenced to prison due to the rape and killing of a woman, this happened because police made Miranda a witness against himself and had him sign a confession for the crimes committed, this was a violation of the 5th and 6th amendment by the police against Miranda, so he appealed first to the Arizona Supreme Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court ruled that the confession had to be excluded from evidence because indeed police violated his rights given by the 5th and the 6th amendments, therefore, the original conviction was overturned, and it showed who by Miranda’s appeal the U.S. supreme court protected him as an individual and his rights. However, the U.S supreme court didn’t deny that he didn’t committed the crimes he was being prosecuted for in the first place, in fact, he was brought again to the state court to be judged with other evidence and witnesses, he was convicted and sent to prison, respecting the rights of the person who was murdered by Miranda.

2. I agree, that, the Federal Court System and the Supreme Court is a non-democratic part of our government, because people don´t participate in elections directly to pick the judges. Judges are nominated by the president and majority in congress approves or disapproves these nominations, the reason of this being is, to fulfill the needs and interests of the owning class, in fact, in Federalists #10 we can find that the U.S. government was created to benefit this owning class, therefore, not created to be democratic.

DB 11.1/Court System

  1. One way the court system is better suited to protect individuals is because of its diversity. Plaintiff and defendants’ arguments will be considered on a case by case basis. Diversity in the court as far as religion, gender, ideology and ethnicity protects people from bigotry. By having a diverse set of judges/staff, clients have a chance at their case being handled fairly and justly and with some empathy. One example is the same-sex marriage ruling. Former Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli Jr. convincing the other 5 justices to rule in favor of same-sex marriage. This decision was based on empathy for another group of people whom Verrilli didn’t exactly identify with, but wanted to grant legal right for them in spite of that.
  2. The way judges become judges is certainly un-democratic. With democracy, the people supposed to be included in the selection process. With things electing politicians, votes and popular opinion are factored into who gets chosen. Judges are appointed through people in high places within congress. The may not even be made aware of it unless there is a high-profile politician behind it such as the President. Only the rich and powerful (upper-class) only being considered for appointing lifetime Supreme Court members.

DB 11.1

  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.

LiLiu-Discussion Board 11.1

LiLiu

Professor Arto Artinian

POL100 (0502): Discussion Board 11.1

June 26, 2021

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 government because the U.S. judicial system is a dual court system, which has three basic tiers consisting of trial courts, appellate courts, and supreme courts. That means everyone has more than one court system to protect his/her rights. According to Reading 11.1 “The Dual Court System,” the author explains how people are protected by different U.S. court systems. For example, the author writes, “Ernesto Miranda, arrested for kidnapping and rape, which are violations of state law, was easily convicted and sentenced to prison after a key piece of evidence—his own signed confession—was presented at trial in the Arizona court. On appeal first to the Arizona Supreme Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court to exclude the confession on the grounds that its admission was a violation of his constitutional rights, Miranda won the case” (The Dual Court System, par. 10). The dual court system protects the voices of a few people like Miranda being heard in court, and has been favorably resolved. Therefore, the court system is more suitable to protect individuals than elected government departments. 

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.)

I agree that the Supreme Court is an anti-democratic part of our government because federal judges are not elected by the people, but appointed by the president. After the president nominates a judge, he needs to be confirmed by a majority of the Senate, so the senator exerts a considerable influence on the choice of judges. Before nominating judges, the president needs to consult with senators who have political ties with himself. These senators can block the judges nominated by the president by expressing opposition. This puts the appointment of federal judges firmly in the hands of the ruling party. Therefore, the Supreme Court is an anti-democratic part of our government. Moreover, they chose this approach to make the appointment of judges in the American judicial system to be in the hands of a few political parties with a clear ideology, so as to facilitate the protection of their own interests. Therefore, this is also the reason why they chose this way to choose federal judges.