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 has been more adapted to protecting the individual since it is independent and unbiased, focusing its rulings on the Constitution and the law rather than pressure from politics or public opinion. Political goals or the interests of those in power may have an impact on elected bodies like Congress or local legislatures, often at the price of the rights of minorities. For instance, anybody can challenge a bill that restricts free expression in court if it is passed by the NYC City Assembly. If the law violates constitutional rights, the courts have the power to overturn it, protecting people even when elected authorities do not. Regardless of political trends, this judicial check guarantees that individual free speech are maintained.

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 considered anti-democratic since its justices are appointed for life rather than elected by the people, protecting them from direct influence by the public. This design was intentional: Federalist #10 makes the case for a government that defends minority rights and prevents the threats posed by majority groups, which may need implementing judgments that are not impacted by public opinion. The process for selecting judges guarantees that the court can serve as an insurance policy against temporary majorities and political pressures. The rich or educated classes have historically benefited from this system since the framers believed that they were best suited to make intelligent choices. Therefore, consistency and the preservation of constitutional values over temporary popular demands are the goals of the anti-democratic system.