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 focus will always be to look if the individual’s constitutional rights were violated. It is the demand that is set by the constitution to protect citizen’s of their rights. This is to examine and control the abuse of power by the government. The constitution was written to make sure that government no matter the power they hold do not violate rights. This was due to the abusive government present in England. The Miranda example is a perfect example of how the court system functions. Upon looking at the facts, his rights were violated. Needn’t matter whether he was guilty or not, what is prioritized is his individual right.

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 it has more to do with the zeitgeist which is fairly represented by the president. Since the president has the power to appoint a judge it must be because they represent the people. As of right now Roe vs Wade has been overturned. A horrible fate that women from most 50 states have suffered from. The judges in power were appointed by Donald Trump a republican president who chose judges with a republican views. This is a demonstration of Anti-Democracy present on the government. For the country is not entirely one or the other. However, when a handful of judges only support one opinion it is more likely for a country’s conditions to be shaped in the way of the judges. The power they hold is much greater for they set the rules of the land.

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.

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.

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. 

In many distinct aspects the court system was designed to protect the liberties of individual citizens. The positive component of the court system is that every person has multiple court systems in place that are created to protect their rights. In a dual court system, an individual has several opportunities for protection. A good example of this would be in the Miranda Vs. Arizona case. Ernesto Miranda got arrested for kidnapping and rape, two crimes that are considered violations of state law. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to prison time after his signed confession was displayed at his trial. However, this piece of evidence was considered a violation of his constitutional rights, ultimately causing him to win the case. It was stated that by using his confession as evidence the police were violating Miranda’s Fifth Amendment rights which include the right to avoid self-incrimination, such as the right to remain silent. They also violated his Sixth Amendment rights, which is the right to an attorney. He couldn’t achieve this win from the government. It was the court’s decision to honor and value his rights as an individual. It’s a rarity for the voice of a minority citizen to be heard in court so this speaks volumes about the role of our court system in the United States Democratic Republic. His case was able to be resolved in favor of him, which is something only the court system can provide.  

Miranda’s case was won in the federal courts but many state cases can serve the same purpose. State cases have the capacity to focus on a multitude of issues, allow entry to a specific group of people and endorse several interests. If a problem isn’t tackled in one area, it’s possible that it may be delt with in another. There are many chances for a particular issue to be resolved in many different avenues across the United States. Many people believe that state courts are imperative within a democracy because they offer many alternatives for political access. Our republic has remained so successful due to these countless options because not provided all paths work for everyone.  

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.) 

It just the name alone, the Supreme Court proves itself as an anti-democratic part of our government. The word supreme means reigning high above the rest as the ultimate authority figure. However, this country prides itself on being a democracy where the people along with their representatives have the highest form of power. The representatives and their constituents make the laws, expecting them to be both obeyed as well as enforced. However, members of the Supreme Court have the power to overturn these laws. We saw an example of this early this year with the overturning of Roe V Wade, a law regarding women’s body autonomy that was implemented almost 50 years ago. It’s almost comparable to the power of a monarchy, where the control of the government is placed upon an individual or group of unelected people.  

I believe the reason the Founding Fathers wanted the Supreme Court to be a lifetime position because it was another way to maintain the power of wealthy, property owning white men. This was their effort to empower the wealthy by preserving their influence in the government, appointing people who would rule in their favor, consolidate their power, and allowing them to be free from democratic control. The founders used the British monarchical system as an example to empower their wealthy capitalist citizens and limiting the power of the average population. They believed the masses didn’t have the capacity to judge or determine correctly. Therefore, by keeping the wealthy class in permanent positions in the government they can ensure that all decisions made are in their favor. By giving the wealth a prominent and everlasting share in the government it meant that they had an entire branch dedicated and controlled by the rich and powerful. No branch in government is as powerful as the Supreme Court when it comes to protecting the rights attached to property. 

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 elected branches of government, such as the Congress, the president, the mayor of New York City, and the NYC City Assembly, are less suited to safeguard the person than the court system. By contesting unconstitutional laws, the legal system upholds individual liberties and rights. For instance, the judicial department, which establishes and upholds fairness, equality, and liberty, has done the most to protect the rights of the person. Unlike elected officials, who are formally tied to the public, the U.S. Supreme Court is not. As a result, the legal system is better fitted to safeguard the rights and liberties of the individual because it does so.

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.)

Since they reject democratic decision-making, freedom of speech, equality before the law, and social justice as some of the guiding principles or purposes of a just society, I do believe that the supreme court is the most anti-democratic part of the government. They continue acting in this manner, in my opinion, because they want the government to continue operating in the same manner; they do not want anything to change for their own gain. The Supreme Court in my opinion is indeed an anti-democratic branch of our government. This is due to the fact that the judges on the Supreme Court are appointed rather than chosen by the general public, causing their interests to reflect those of the president in office and their refusal to uphold the US Constitution, which is occasionally not in the interests of the majority. There is always an opposing side, and no single group has control of the government, but it is still the wealthy who control the government and protect liberties because they hold a dominant position in our political system and choose judges based on who at the time has the same political rhetoric and has previously served as judges at the federal level.

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 individuals than the elected branches of government are because they focus more on protecting individual’s rights for example it is fine for someone being questioned by an officer to remain silent because it is a right they have while on the other hand  An example the article stated was when someone commits a criminal act, the government (state or national, depending on which law has been broken) charges that person with a crime such as the Miranda v. Arizona case which included both of these examples. Each person has more than just one court system ready to protect his or her rights which is beneficial for 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 definitely believe that the supreme court is an anti-democratic part of the government and a reason for this and choosing the judges in federal courts has to do with the wealthy class and people who own property and businesses. I believe that they are so focused on what benefits them and how they can maintain or get richer which has to do with why they don’t agree with many choices that democrats make.

1. The court system is better suited to protect the individual than are the elected branches of government such as the Congress and the president, or the mayor of NYC and the NYC City Assembly. The court system defends individual rights and freedoms by going against the laws that disobey the constitution. The judicial branch for example has done the most to protect the individual’s rights—this branch defines and preserves fairness, equality, and liberty. The U.S. Supreme court is not formally connected with the public the way elected leaders are. Thus, the court system is better suited to protect the individual because of how it protects individuals’ rights and defends individual freedoms. 

2. Our current president Joe Biden is a Republican which makes him anti-democratic. However, I believe that the Supreme court is somewhat anti-democratic because the current president is a Republican, and what controls the supreme court is the president of the U.S. Therefore, the senate approves the unconditioned positions with a suggestion. Thus, I agree that the Supreme Court is an anti-democratic part of our government for the reason that the president is a Republican, and the power comes back to him. The reason for this way of choosing judges in federal courts is that they are selected by the president and are approved by the Senate.

1. The court system is better suitable to protect the individual because there is more than one court system ready to protect an individuals rights. The court system also provides alternative venues in which to appeal for assistance. A good example of the court system being better suited to protect an individual is the trial of Ernesto Miranda. The Supreme Court found that his Fifth Amendment had been violated. This was a decision that the state courts alone could not have decided.
2. I do not think the selection of Supreme Court Justices is anti-democratic. Even though the Justices are not elected by the citizens of the country they are however appointed by individuals who are elected by the citizens. The reasoning for Supreme Court Justices to be selected this way is so only individuals who are deemed worthy enough by the people in charge will get selected. The founding fathers did not want less educated or less wealthy individuals to be able to influence the decisions made on a National level.

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.
   1. The court system is better suited to protect the individual, than are the elected branches of government. Judges apart of the court system are appointed rather than elected, they do not appease to a specific group or majority opinion. The nominee most likely always reflect the presidents ideologies and rhetoric and serve a life time as a supreme court judge. Most cases are not tried by the supreme court, those cases that effect most Americans go to the supreme court. Examples of this is the overturn of Roe v. Wade and Brown v. The Board of Education. Those judges at the state and federal level defend the rights of citizens.

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 agree that the Supreme Court is anti democratic part of our government and this is because the Supreme Court Judges are appointed opposed to elected by the public so there interest reflect the current president and the withhold the United States Constitution which sometimes is not in favor of the majority. Because the wealthy play a leading role in our government system and choosing a judge is in the best interest of who at that time have the same political rhetoric and have already were judges at a federal level there is always an opposing side and no same group has control of the government but it is still the wealthy that control the government and protects the liberties of those who are wealthy. Decisions are made for the good of the public but of factions.

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.

1.) Every case that must be presented within a court is evaluated to determine which kind of court they must be heard in. In the court system, there is the “Federal” or “State” that can hear both about individual cases but for distinct reasons. Many cases are heard within the State court system and these cases usually pertain to civil and criminal circumstances. If we had to compare the court system to any type of elected branches of government, it is believed that the court system is better suited to handle an individual’s protection. Considering that the “State” courts are the first step in the process and handle approximately 90% of individual cases, it is safe to say that this is correct. State courts handle most cases that correspond to an individual’s trouble, such as felonies, misdemeanors, personal injuries, family law, etc… These are all but a few of the many dilemmas that this form of court hears daily. Many of these are issues that require one to hear an individual(s) out and promote justice to those that are deserving. Considering such a fact, elected branches of government hear cases as well but only for certain matters. Most of the time when they decide to focus on a case, it usually goes beyond an individual’s protection but a broader outlook. To name a few; cases that deal with the constitutionality of a law, disputes amongst two or more states, cases involving ambassadors and public ministers, etc… All cases are matters that affect the country instead of a single individual. Not to mention, they take on matters that are more controversial and require a bigger change. A prime example of a case that resembles such is Brown v. Board of Education. This was case where the U.S. Supreme Court declared state laws that established separate public schooling for students of different races to be unconstitutional. During this time, African Americans that had resided in the South of the country faced racial segregation and were not permitted to have the same opportunities as others. Being that the Supreme Court found this unconstitutional, it meant that they referred to the Amendments. The Amendments were made to protect individual freedoms, but it is a freedom that was stripped from these American citizens. Thus, these two forms of courts differentiate substantially. 

2.) An individual who has the potential to become a judge goes through the process of being appointed rather than elected. Typically, the process sometimes involves the President’s choosing from among a list of candidates that is maintained by the American Bar Association. After that, a discussion about their choice takes place in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Thus, there is a vote that must be confirmed by the full Senate. This process has been deemed by many as biased to Democrats or anti-democratic because Republicans usually have the upper hand on who gets elected. Given that most of these individuals that make up the Republican party are quite wealthy and are white, whereas the Democratic party comprise of Blacks. Each side has their own perspectives on certain matters and would want to elect a candidate that meets the needs of the wealthy individuals. Not to mention, when a “vacancy” occurs in a lower federal court, the President consults with that state’s U.S. Senators to make a nomination. This is also known as “senatorial courtesy,” the Senators would be in relation to the same party as the President. Making their choice biased and, in some cases, a Senator can oppose a nominee just by voicing their opposition. So, when you look at it from either angle, the reason for choosing judges this way will result in increasing the population size of a certain party and ensuring that they keep the same revolving interests. Republicans continue to dominate and this party is known to be full of white rich men that only want more individuals around them that have the same mindset; money. You can think of each side with their own side of people that share a common interest and goal.