- 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.
Well the court system focus on the rights of an individual person. Whereas the elected branches of government focus on people as a whole and not individually. Also elected branches does not base their decisions on public biases. For example Brown V board of education. This hearing occurred during the time of segregation. The federal government made a decision to end segregation in schools even though this is not something the public wanted.
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 do believe this part of our government is anti-democratic with this being the only place people does not have the opportunity to vote and choose who can be judge. I believe judges are appointed oppose to being voted in because Judges keeps their positions until retirement or death. I feel that it helps take the pressure of the public for making a decision of placing a person that they might end up regretting into a power position. With other positions there are terms so if the public feel they made a mistake at least there is a reassurance the person will not stay in power.
