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 than are the elected branches of government such as Congress and the President. It plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government. First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court that has the last words for those looking for justice. The Court has the final say over when a right is protected by the Constitution or when a Constitutional right is violated. Also, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. Another good point is that the Court don’t know much information on cases prior they start working on them to already predict their decisions. The Justices do not work on their own, they get helped from law clerks. Their decisions are influenced by those law clerks recommendations and works. Example is when the Supreme Court decided in Texas v. Johnson that burning the flag was a form of expressive conduct. The Supreme court ruled in favor of the individual against the government. The court even found the law about flag desecration was unconstitutional.

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 the Federal Judges are appointed but not elected by the majority because they are placed to protect the interests of who selected, nominated and confirmed them in that position. The process is, the President obtain a referral from a Professional Association and nominates the selected to be confirmed by the majority of the Senate vote. This type of selection is anti-democratic due to the fact that the Judges are not elected by the public vote while they are appointed for life. However, a President who is elected for four years is elected by the public. A Federal judge selection particularly aligned with the Federalist 10 that argues that a government member’s selection must be by the wealthy and not by the masses. They said that the masses interests negatively affect the interests of the community. Therefore, in an important member of government selection the public must be excluded.