1.The court system is suited to protect people because laws equally protect everybody. Courts are not influenced by popular opinions because they are not elected. Judges are not or at least should not subject to any political agendas. Their jobs are solely to interpret laws and apply them. This characteristic is highlighted by the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education. The court ruled the “separated but equal” is inherently unequal and outlawed jim crow law. This is a highlight in the advantage of our court system because at the time many citizens are heavily in favor of the separate but equal doctrine. If the court system is democratic the tyranny of the majority will be inevitable. Because the function of the court is pure therefore it is the best suited to protect the people.

2.The court system is anti-democratic for a reason. For one, due to the nature of the function of the court, the election system will lead to biased judges. Because if a judge needs to win an election to keep the job, he/she is more likely to make the ruling in favor of his/her voters. This will be a problem because if we take the court case we have talked about “Brown v. Board of Education.” And we place a team of biased judges, in this case, the result may very well be different and the verdict itself might be unconstitutional. In order to uphold the authority of the law, unbiased, just judges must be selected. This is why Supreme Court judges are appointed rather than elected.

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.

In theory members of the court are supposed to be neutral. They are suited better to protect the individual because the court system is the one that interprets laws. Also, as opposed to the Congress, President and other Political representatives, members of the court are not allowed in theory to use their political interests when deciding on a case. Indeed, lecture 13.4 states how the members of the Supreme court are influenced but don’t exactly rule according to their political opinions: “. . . none of the justices works completely in an ideological bubble. While their numerous opinions have revealed certain ideological tendencies, they still consider each case as it comes to them, and they don’t always rule in a consistently predictable or expected way”. However, members of the court system do not work completely on their own, which means they can be influenced by other opinions. Still, this is not really common. On the other hand, Political representatives have strong interests and will act in order to benefit themselves. To illustrate : A political representative who needs the votes of the LGTBQ community would rule a case of discrimination favoring the interest of that community in order to get the support of them. Whereas, a member of the court system would make sure to follow the laws and the previous state rulings in order to best defend the interests of the people. 

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.)

Yes, I agree that it is Anti-democratic. Indeed, democracy is about the participation of all. Still, in this type of election only the ruling class or the people in Political Power are the ones who get to decide on it. In previous lectures like “Federalist #10” it has been proved that the government in the United States had been created to benefit the ruling class, also known as the owning class. Then, it is not surprising that the Court System, which is just one more part of the American Government, appoints members in a non-democratic way. The government system in the United States was not created to be democratic, hence the Court System, a part of the U.S. government is not a democratic institution. In fact, the reason why judges are appointed is to only have people that will represent and defend the interest of the owning class in this institution.

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 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.

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 courts being independent cannot be influenced by an opinion from the public like the ones elected like the president and others. They are significantly affected by public policy in terms of cost and benefits. Instead, courts are based on specific issues and thus deploy narrow question techniques that strictly focus on the exact individuals affected by a particular verdict than for elected ones. An illustration of this context was well evident in Brown v. Board of Education, where the courts were controversially destined for protecting people and not otherwise.

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 court’s 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 with the Americans’ ideology that appointing judges to fill the federal courts is an anti-democratic move.  For instance, citizens feel their right to appoint whom they think should judge them. Further, the citizens believe that the judges are likely to mirror their own politically based ideologies than working for the people hence the view that citizens should be involved in electing judges. Unlike presidents and other political representatives, the federal judges are usually appointed to federal courts because they are believed to be independent and neutral, thus impartial while making decisions free from political influence. The latter is based on the fact that the judges hardly participate in re-election campaigns, given that they have a fixed tenure term.

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.)