1. The Court System is better suited to protect the individual, than the elected branches of government because the elected branches of government are mainly focused on city and state issues and the Court system focuses on criminal and civil cases and is there to listen to individuals’ situations to come up with a better solution that can help the individual weather it’s an unfair decision or fair. An example of how the court system is better suited to protect the individual is reading 11.1 which states, ” Consider the case Miranda v. Arizona. 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 because its admission was a violation of his constitutional rights, Miranda won the case. By a slim 5–4 margin, the justices ruled that the confession had to be excluded from evidence because in obtaining it, the police had violated Miranda’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. In the opinion of the Court, because of the coercive nature of police interrogation, no confession can be admissible unless a suspect is made aware of his rights and then in turn waives those rights. For this reason, Miranda’s original conviction was overturned.’ This example shows how the court system didn’t take the evidence because the police didn’t read Miranda his 5th and 6th amendment and violated his constitutional rights the courts made sure that even if the person is guilty they don’t want an individual to have their rights violated and the courts won they had a strong case either way without the confession that was inadmissible afterward.
2. The Supreme Court judges are appointed by the president, I do not agree that they are anti-democratic the reason I say this is because reading 11.2 states, ” Presidential nominees for the courts typically reflect the chief executive’s ideological position. With a confirmed nominee serving a lifetime appointment, a president’s ideological legacy has the potential to live on long after the end of his or her term. President Obama surely considered the ideological leanings of his two Supreme Court appointees, and both Sotomayor and Kagan have consistently ruled in a more liberal ideological direction. The timing of the two nominations also dovetailed nicely with the Democratic Party’s gaining control of the Senate in the 111th Congress of 2009–2011, which helped guarantee their confirmations. But some nominees turn out to be surprised or end up ruling in ways that the president who nominated them did not anticipate. Democratic-appointed judges sometimes side with conservatives, just as Republican-appointed judges sometimes side with liberals.’ They have their reasons why they chose certain judges because some side with conservatives and some with liberals, so they want to choose someone that is neutral and won’t be favoring one side more than the other for issues within the government and public to be resolved. The Federalists #10 are similar to republicans in the way that they think they are a superior race and how they don’t like democracy. Democracy is in a way a good thing for our government because it will make everyone equal, whereas a Federalist party only thinks about their wealth and status. The people who wrote the constitution were so afraid of democracy. The reason the upper class(the wealthy class) was afraid of democracy was that they were worried that the power would be put with the wrong person. They were afraid because they knew that it would give the working class power over them. They didn’t believe in the working class would strive in this country.

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 on a federal level protects our constitutional rights more than the elected branches due to the fact that the government has their own agenda that they want to push to the United States citizens and it does not matter at some point whether it violates our constitutional rights. However, we as the citizens of the United States have the power to utilize the federal court system to uphold and protect our constitutional rights. For example, on the COVID 19 vaccine. The elected branches mandated every U.S. citizen is forced to take the vaccine against their own free will and if not, they then threatened that each hard-working U.S Citizen is to lose their employment. In October 26, 2022 a judge in the New York State supreme court ruled that Mayor Eric Adams vaccine mandate back in October of 2021 was unlawful and made the decision that every employee who lost their job during this mandate is to be rehired. This decision was made on a case filed earlier this year by 16 sanitation workers who refused to take the mandated vaccine and lost their employment.  The decision was made due to the violation of separation of powers doctrine within NY state constitution and it violated the workers substantive and procedural due process rights and lacked the power and authority to permanently exclude the workers from their workplace. This is a prime example of elected branches vs the court system and how they protect us more than the elected branches.

• The supreme Court-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 supreme court is not anti-democratic. This is a statement clearly made by an upset democratic party. Federal judges are appointed and not elected for the sole purpose of ensuring they apply the law with only justice in mind and not for the electoral, political or public concerns.

1.There are a couple different reasons why the court system is better suited to protect the individual rather than elected officials in government.  First off, one of the primary goals of the court system is to ensure an individual’s constitutional rights. Since the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, it allows the people to have an independent party protecting their constitutional rights, particularly against Congress. An example of this is the case of Marbury v. Madison. (1803), which happened to be the first instance in which the courts ruled an act against Congress had been deemed unconstitutional.  Another reason is the fact that the court system can delve more deeply into individual cases in order to rule on any given decision/case.  With Congress, a lot of the time the decisions or laws that are made are done on a broader level, thus increasing the chances of individual’s rights being abused by Congress.

2. I could see how someone would think that the Supreme Court could be an anti-democratic part of the government, but I do not believe that to be the case. I do understand that they are not elected by the people, however Supreme Court justices do have to be vetted and approved by a majority of Senators, whom are elected to represent the people who voted for them in their state. Although the court has a tendency to lean one way or the other ideologically, their use of precedence allows them to be contrarian to those ideologies if need be, which in turn is pro-democratic in nature. I do believe that the process was set out to be this way was to keep some sort of power within government. The constitution evolved over time to give citizens more rights and control within society. With that being the case, this practice was created to keep some of the power within the government, even at the expense of creating a separate entity that would inevitably keep said government in line.

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 Supreme Court does not have opinions or influences from the public. As the Supreme Court are elected through vacancy on the Courts and the senate vote to confirm the individual. Executive and legislative branches play a big role in composition of the Supreme Court. A good example to showcase would be Brown v. Board of Education. With the case of Brown v. Board of Education, the outcome was the Supreme Court ruled that separating children in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional

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 do not believe that the Supreme Court is an anti democratic part of our government. I believe the reason as to why this is he way of choosing judges in federal courts is to ensure a independent judiciary and to protect judges from partisan pressures. I feel as we the public do often give a lot of option as to what outcomes do come from the courts, this is to ensure a non clouded judgment from political pressure when deciding cases.

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.

As far as courts, their job and what they stand for is “Innocent until proven guilty”. With that being said, that obviously reminds you that you are allowed to argue your case and be heard before the court makes any further decisions on your case. It gives you the right to fight and prove your innocence. Instead of the branches of government as they don’t listen to all the evidence that gets provided and they are more interested with situations in the city or the state, instead of that of an individual. Since the others are mostly chosen by the president to represent the government as suppose to the other are for the people.

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 absolutely agree with that statement. I don’t feel like it’s always been like that because you have seen how much diversity has changed and showed up in the Supreme Court. However, our previous president showed us how true our reading from (Federalist #10) is still very much of an occurrence in our present. When President Trump appointed the people he chose, he obviously went off people whom he believed are right for the job. Which means for his best interest, once again wealth and power (Upper Class). To protect those with money always by any means necessary. And this isn’t to speak bad of the people whom have worked hard to get into their positions, but the reality is when one has wealth it’s easier to get somewhere as those whom start from nothing to make something even greater.

1. The court system is better suited to protect the individual, than the elected branches of government. First, the court justices are not elected by the people, and the supreme court justices serve for life, as a result, they are not swayed by public opinion and are more willing than elected officials to take on controversial and contentious cases. Other branches of government are more likely if not always, gets influenced by the people’s opinion even if those opinions are not morally right. This is because they are elected by the people, and if the people are not pleased or support the elected officials, they overturn the elected official and bring in another one who support their ideas. Therefore, the court system is better suited to protect an individual because the court would analyze the situation and then give their verdict in the interest of the individual, even if it the individual against the state. An example of how the court system is better suited to protect the individual is the Brown v. Board of Education case in 1951. In this case Oliver Brown filled a lawsuit against the Board of Education of Topeka, after his daughter was denied entry into all white school. In the decision, the court protected the rights of the individuals by arguing that they were deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14^th Amendment, and that they had every right to enter the school.

2. I agree that the  supreme court is anti-democratic part of the government because the justices are not elected by the people but rather by the president. The constitution gave the president the power to choose supreme court justices, and the senate the power to confirm or reject the president’s nomination to the supreme court. This constitution was written by the upper class in the society, who were afraid of democracy and wanted to concentrate and maintain power in the upper class. This is one way of making sure that power remains in the upper class. The justices of the supreme court are the highest government position in the society, and they decide the constitutionality of the law. They are elected by the president of the country with the approval of the senate. Although this was done, to avoid being swayed by the people, the justices can be swayed by the people who put them like the president for example, and sometimes the influence of the president can still be seen even after they are no longer in power. I believe this is why sometimes, the senate might not approve the nominee of the president if they belong in different party. Giving the upper class (President, and Senate) instead of the power, the power to elect those who interpret and uphold the constitution (written by the upper class) for life shows that the supreme court is an anti-democratic part of our government.

1. The Court system is better suited for the protection of individual’s rights than the other branches of our government because the other branches are focused on issues that effect many if not all citizens whereas the Court system deals with issues on a case by case basis, or in other words, by the individual. The second reason is that the court system is the branch of our government most responsible for upholding limitations on the other branches of government. This means that as long as the Court systems stays in power neither of the other branches will be able to overpower our democracy. Thirdly, the Court system is responsible for the law. Since the law is what protects our individual freedoms, this is also the responsibility of the Court system.
2. The relevance of this question to federalist 10 is that Maddison believes that having qualified people in government is more important than sustaining a completely democratic system. Democracy is complicated and often results in a two steps forward one step back approach to progressiveness. While I agree that having appointed representatives is more indicative of a republic than a democracy, this is why the US is often called a Democratic Republic by technicality. More specifically than a democracy, we are a representative democracy, wherein some representatives may be elected by the people, but other representatives are elected by the representatives themselves like in the case of the Supreme Court or the Electoral College.

I set this DB to self publish at 10:59 because I’m out of the state and thought I might have to compensate for the time change.

There is a lot of ways in witch  the court system is better suited to protect the individual that are the elected branches of government . The first way , is that it gives a forum for the airing of grievances that might not otherwise be heard , this is needed when the government or a powerful company is against a person .  

2. Yes I agree , that the Supreme Court is an anti democratic part of our government because they are not elected by  citizens   . The way it works is the Constitution gives the president the power to appoint justice to the court. That means that whoever the president appointed has the power so whoever the president favors is in charge .

Veronica Gonzalez

POL 100 (0504) – Intro. to American Govt. – Fall 2022

Discussion Board 11.1

Q1. The court system is better suited to protect the individual than the elected branches of government based on the fact that the court system is able to 1) provide individuals with more than one judicial platform of having their side and case heard or even re-heard i.e., federal, state, civil, criminal courts, appellate courts, 2) regardless of an individual’s class status, they are given the opportunity to be judged by their peers or by a representative of the courts (judge) that has ample knowledge of the law, and 3) varying courts also allow for variety of issues to have access to the political platforms  that can move the government in creating laws that address these issues and are beneficial to the nation. In Miranda v. Arizona the issue at hand was the violation of the constitutional rights of an individual, who had indeed committed the crime they were accused of, but was not informed by law enforcement authorities of the constitutional rights, specifically the 5th Amendment right against self incrimination, they could exercise in their favor. The individual was tried in a state court i.e., criminal court but the appeal was heard in the federal court i.e., Supreme Court. Because of the existence of different judicial platforms i.e., state and federal courts, this case was able to reach different judicial audiences that heard the facts and made a decision that affects till this day our nation.
Q2. From my perspective, the selection of a Supreme Court judge can be considered as an anti democratic part of the government based on the fact that 1) there are only two parties involved in the nomination and confirmation process (president and Senate) of a future Supreme Court judge and 2) presidents nominate a candidate based on their ideology. The people are not involved in the process in terms of voting for a Supreme Court candidate and support for a potential nominee can go either way with the people, as in a candidate/nominee may appeal to one political party but not the other and vice versa. US Supreme Court justices are appointed to the position for life or until they no longer want or are unable to fulfill the duties of the position. Lifetime appointment was based on the fact that regardless of the changing times, this judicial body would remain constant and consistent, not being influenced by the ever changing times and be a base of independent thinking, reasoning and decision making that would look at cases brought before them without any influence towards one political party or the other, topic or issue but would decide on these cases for the benefit of the people. Judges in the lower federal court system are also nominated by the president but here a consideration called senatorial courtesy is given. The president consults with the state’s senator prior to making a nomination for a lower federal court judge, which the senator can approve or not. We can see that at the federal court system level, power to decide who gets to run our court system rests in the hands of rich white males, much like in the early foundation of our nation. In either case, the people are kept out of choosing the judges that will try many of the cases that may affect their civil rights.