Q #1: within the government, elected branches control a crucial role in protecting our individual rights within this country. The justice system is comprised of a list of judges aren’t influenced by any public opinions. These judges are not elected by the public, and are more equipped to cover controversial cases versus elected officials. For instance, in the Brown v. Board of Education case, these judges concluded that they would protect people regardless if it was politically not a moral idea.

Q #2: In a way, it’s quiet surface level that the Supreme Court is anti-democratic. It’s blatant that the structure to educate public opinion into the decision making progress is that an all time low. These elected judges serve lifelong terms in the public office. They also partake in biased judgment by ruling in favor of the ruling party. The supreme court judges normally do not have the support of the people and that’s just the way it is. The main reason for selecting judges this way is to guard the individual interests of the wealthy which Federalist #10 proves. Whoever is president at the time is enabled to nominate judges who is opinions on who is pets are mainly narrow down by the view and likes of the wealthy class.

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 individuals of America thus to them not being influenced by public opinions. The Supreme Court has judges that are appointed by the President and will be confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Cases have shown to be proven that the public opinions does not interfere with constitutional actions. For ex. Brown v. Board proved that the voice of the citizens of America were ignored and silenced and did not interfere with the court system’s effective choices.

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.)

Since the upper class has a hierarchy in terms of their wealth, they are able to use their wealth to pay for the necessary expenses found in campaigning. They are able to afford to spend months openly campaigning to be elected as a congressional member of the United States. These wealthy, upper class Americans will then choose to appoint Supreme Court Judges who have similar values as they do. For example, during the Trump administration, there were more republican representatives in congress, which created a majority that could vote and appoint a more conservative leaning Supreme Court judge, AKA Brett Kavanaugh. So in essence, yes, the supreme court is anti democrsatic. The people can’t make the appointments to the Supreme court, it is only the responsibility of Congress. By association, we elect the supreme court judges, but if the elected officials do not represent our ideals, it can be contradictory. 

The court system better suits to protect individuals because the court system has many branches that support a person’s freedom, giving them the chance to defend themselves or be proven innocent. According to reading 11.1 says, “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.” This demonstrates that police officers violated Miranda’s 5th and 6th constitutional rights. Miranada’s conviction was overturned when he was able to be heard in court.

I feel the federal judge’s actions are anti-democratic. People should be free to express their views on who will be appointed. Due to judges being selected by nomination from the upper class, people are unable to vote or have any knowledge of who they are voting for. Which allows just specific persons to become judges or have a certain set of people who have the same viewpoint.

The Supreme Court is not influenced by public opinion, it is not easily swayed by popular opinion. They are not elected by people but appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate and they last a lifetime. They follow the law, respected the constitution and protects the rights of individuals.

Many people would agree that the Supreme Court is an anti-democratic part of our government, I think it has to be, to be able to protect minority against the majority as it was designed to do so. They handle tough and controversial issue from gay rights to abortions.

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.

I think the court system is better suited to protect the individual, than the elected branches of the government because the court justices are pointed by the president and confirmed by the senate for a lifetime duration which means they are not elected by people. Therefore, they do not have political influences and they are willing to apply the law and respect the constitution in a way to protect individual’s liberty and rights even if the cases are related to controversial topics. While the elected officials are influenced by the public opinions who elects them.     

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.)

In my opinion, the American supreme court is antidemocratic in terms of the way judges are selected. They are not involved in a political election and thus they do not have to worry for the public opinion on making decision since they are appointed by president and confirmed by the senate for a time life. While the democracy involves people in a first degree. Moreover, referring to the federal 10 which categorize the owner class to leading the American government and it works to promote and protect their properties is a better point to say that the court supreme antidemocratic.  However, we could notice certain democracy if we look the supreme court in terms of dealing with the constitution which serves people and protect their rights and liberties. It is an indirect way to practice democracy.

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 because the law is passed to protect individuals. The case of Brown v. Board showed that even if the public doesn’t like the decision, it wouldn’t affect the decision of the court system.

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 think it’s somewhat anti-democratic, but America isn’t specifically a democratic country, since the capital class won’t want that to affect their benefit. And in another hand, the judge might be biased, if they have to be elected to be the judge.

Question 1
The elected branches of government play a vital role in protecting individual rights in our country. The court system is composed of a list of judges who are not influenced by public opinion. The judges are not elected by the public, and they are more willing to handle controversial cases than elected officials. For example, in the Brown v. Board of Education case, judges decided to protect people even though it was politically not a thoughtful idea.

Question 2
I believe that the Supreme court is anti-democratic. In general, it fails to integrate public opinion into the decision-making process. The elected judges hold their position for life in public offices. The appointed judges are also involved in unfair judgment by ruling in favor of the ruling party. The judges in the Supreme court did not have the support of the people. The main reason for choosing judges this way is to protect the individual interests of the wealthy, as Federalist #10 outlines. The president nominates the judges, where the most opinions on the judges to be selected are defined by the views and interests of the wealthy class.

Question 1

Elected branches of our government whether federal, state or local governance primarily undertakes the legislative processes of the system, enacting laws and ensuring its enforcement by the appropriate law enforcement agencies. Both Congress, and State government and the President of the United States enact laws or policies respectively that impact the lives of the citizens.

However, there are often times where an enacted law or policy may violates an individual constitutional right, or a lawsuit file against someone, or just a civil matter that requires judicial process in such case the dual court system comes in play as a protector of ones individual right.

For instance the case of Miranda v. Arizona, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for violating the Arizona State law for rape and kidnapping, for which he was convicted and sentenced to prison based on his own signed confession and presented to the court during his trial. His lawyers appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court and subsequently to the nation highest court, U.S. Supreme court on the grounds of constitutional rights violation with reference to his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination as well as his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney.

The US Supreme Court ruled in his favor on the matter of his constitutional rights, disregarding his prior conviction and sentences for which the lower court retried the case without admitting previous confession. The US Supreme Court noted that the coercive nature of police interrogation, no confession can be admissible unless a suspect is first made aware of his or her rights and willingly waives such rights. In this example it demonstrated one way where the court system protects an individual right without government intrusion.   

Question 2

The process of appointing federal judges can be looked on as anti-democratic and for most citizens it is, as they do not have a direct vote that ultimately determines the next Supreme Court justice or that of the Appeals or Circuit Court. The President has that sole charge under advisement to choose who fills any available seat on the bench within the federal courts. This was an intentional and yet very calculated act of establishing such a system by the Federalist. The Federalist was know to be the affluent, wealthy class who vertically zero in on their own interest and benefit when creating the role in our system of government.  Their primary economic interest was tied to personal property. They favored a high court with judges that would have some level of consistency in view with favorable ruling. The framers saw the need to have a division of authority within the federal government three branches preventing any one branch to becoming too strong in power.

1. The court system protects and aids individuals better than elected branches of government as they are appointed to each have a specific plan in order, rather than just viewing the population. In a way I feel the court system is the system of the people and for the people. Meaning the elected branches of government see the country before they see anyone else. The court system can keep their focus on one individual at a time if they are going to court or such, deciding whether or not the individual deserves jail time or not or if other measures need to be taken in order to help the individual. The elected branches hear or come across different cases if they need to step in, local or state courts see 90% of the cases, leaving the 10% to the other side. If a tenant is being thrown out of their apartment by their landlord the case would not go to the federal government, it would go to the state or local court and be addressed there. The civil rights case went to the federal court due to the discrimination by private individuals which also violated the constitution.

2. I do think this doing is anti-democratic in a way. I believe the people should have a say in who is going to be appointed rather than just finding out who the individual will be. That is the part that is not democratic, the people don’t have the right to vote or research or learn what that person is about or who they are until the new media covers it and gives information. However, being that there is always a group of individuals that is sort of kept on a list means that the President has crucial information as to why they should nominate that individual. But this is how the “Federalist #10” comes into play, the President is the “only one” that can make this decision based on their power, position, and perhaps thinking they know better than the rest of the country. This allows for their legacy and their views to be represented in the court system.

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 indeed better suited to protect the individual rather than any other branches of government because the court systems give the rights to suspects protecting their own rights or prove themselves innocent. About 90% of all cases were being heard by the state courts, any cases that the state courts are unable to come up with a decision will be heard by the federal courts. In other words, if there are any arguments, they will appeal to the Supreme Courts. That means if the suspect is sentenced by the local court, they can appeal to the Supreme Court for their rights. Because any perceived violation of a liberty protected by the Bill of Right, such as remain silent or the protection against cruel and any unusual punishment. For example, the case Miranda v. Arizona. At the beginning he signed a confession without knowing his civil rights which was a violation of  his constitutional rights. Because the police had violated Miranda’s Fifth Amendment right against self – incrimination, and his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. As a result Miranda’s conviction confession was overturned. In general, after being arrested, suspects are easily nervous and anxious about being sentenced. The misleading of the police makes them think it might be a good way for them to cooperate with police. Therefore, Miranda rights can relieve the suspect’s psychological pressure and it is a good example to protect individuals by the court system.

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 believe that federal judges selected are anti democratic. The way they are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate is very similar with “Federalist #10”, wealthy people and superior intelligence play a leading role in our government system. However, in my point of view, they should be voted by citizens like the president being elected in the U.S. Because federal judges work for people and their cavil rights, only the people themselves know what their desires are. Moreover, the capitalist or wealthy might never experience what the people suffer. So the people question whether the federal judges selected by wealth can really protect them from inequality? The responsibilities of federal judges are divine as they represent all Americans’ voices, and the final decisions from the courts should represent the rightness purpose, no matter wealthy or poor.