- 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 individuals, rather than the elected branches of government because it is structured to function independently, support the constitution and be inclusive of minority voices. Whereas, elected branches of government can be manipulated by their voters or political pressure. The dual court system (state and federal courts) provides individuals with different opportunities to seek justice at a higher level when state courts fail to protect their rights. For instance, in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that arrested individuals must be informed of their rights against self-incrimination and the right to an attorney under the 5th and 6th amendments. Ernesto Miranda was convicted in an Arizona state court without being advised of his right to remain silent under the fifth amendment or the right to an attorney during a police interrogation under the 6th amendment. However, the federal court reversed this decision, reinforcing that “each person has more than just one court system ready to protect his or her rights” (OpenStax 13.2). This allowed Ernesto Miranda’s constitutional rights to be protected even after the state court did not uphold 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.)
I believe the Supreme Court is looked at as anti-democratic because its justices are not elected by the people, they are appointed. First nominated by the President of the United States and the senate then confirms that nomination. Supreme court justices wield massive power over the country’s laws and policies. Justices are appointed for life by the elite ruling class, in efforts to keep the court independent and separated from politics. This structure of power was intentional. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison states “a faction, is a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” (Madison). This shows that the framers did not want factionalism to plague the country and make unfair decisions that did not benefit the everyone. Being that the public is ostracized from the process of appointing justices it can seem anti-democratic.
Works cited
OpenStax. American Government 2e. OpenStax, 2019,
https://openstax.org/books/american-government-2e/pages/13-2-the-dual-court-system.
The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. “Federalist Paper Experts.” 2013, www.gilderlehrman.org.
