1. The court system is better at protecting individuals than elected branches because they are not voted upon. When you say individual in that question, it can also mean a bunch of people in a group with the same ideologies. Anyhow, elected officials need to please a majority group of voters, they need support to stay in power. That does not protect individuals in the minority side. Courts on the other hand, apply the law regardless of the sentiment of the public. The famous example of this was the case that desegregated schools. An elected side would have not passed that at the time as it was not popular, however, the Supreme Court was able to. Which means that were better at protecting individuals in that case as they were not voted on.
2. I do think the Supreme Court is undemocratic in structure as it plays no role in being voted on. However, I do think that is the right way to go about this as individuals would be protected better. Looking at Federalist #10, technically the rich still sought out who gets the Supreme Court as the President and the Senate control appointing the judges. The senate and the President again are elected and they have lobbies and what not. So sadly the Supreme Court is also controlled by the rich class.

1. That there are potentially multiple courts to plead a case gives individuals a better chance to have their matter heard, whereas elected branches serve in a manner to establish policy(ies) that have broader or general effects. In the matter of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court’s role was to decide whether Miranda’s Constitutional rights were violated or not, not whether he was innocent or guilty of the crimes. While we know the ultimate fate of Miranda, the Supreme Court’s existence allowed for him to challenge and ensure that in the course of his legal proceedings, they were done so while maintaining his rights were preserved. A President, Mayor or Congress offer no such avenue.

2. This is not a simple stance to argue. One could argue because the People elect a President and Congress members, any judge appointed and confirmed to federal and Supreme Court is also the People’s choice by extension, ergo democracy at work. However we can see that in practice, judges all the way up to the Supreme Court level seemingly appear to rule along party lines more often than not; that is they generally reflect the believes or views of their appointor, which on the surface level would be anti-democratic. A judge is presumably supposed to rule objectively on a literal case by case basis. One can presume judges are appointed this way to keep the status quo; if there are enough judges in enough courts, then any challenges to a President’s or any particular’s administration would likely have a higher chance of defeating any challenges in court.

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 at protecting individuals because judges don’t have to worry about elections or pleasing voters. They can focus on the Constitution and people’s rights instead of what the majority wants. Elected officials usually try to satisfy voters, which can sometimes ignore minority groups. Courts can step in and protect those individuals when their rights are violated.

For example, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ended school segregation. Even though many elected officials supported segregation at the time, the Court protected the rights of Black students.

2.  Some people say the Supreme Court is anti-democratic because judges are not elected, they are appointed and serve for life. This means the public doesn’t directly choose them. But this is done so judges can stay independent and not make decisions based on politics. 

In Federalist #10, the founders worried that the majority could harm minority groups. By appointing judges, they can protect individual rights instead of following public opinion. It also reflects the idea that more educated elites would play a leading role in government and help keep decisions stable.

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.)