- 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 because it is to uphold the rule of law and constitutional rights, “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. Yet the Supreme Court considered only the violation of Miranda’s constitutional rights, but not whether he was guilty of the crimes with which he was charged.” However, the dual court system has both benefits and drawbacks; therefore, each individual has more than just one court system ready to protect his or her rights.
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 agree that the Supreme Court is an anti-democratic part of our government therefore, the appointment of the federal judges which includes Supreme Court justices is designed to ensure judicial independence.The Supreme Court can be viewed as anti-democratic because its members are not directly elected by the people, and they serve lifetime appointments. This insulates them from public opinion and political pressure, allowing them to make decisions based on the Constitution and the law, rather than popular sentiment. Therefore, appointing judges should be free from political influence. However, “Federalist #10,” the framers of the Constitution were concerned about the potential for tyranny of the majority and the influence of factions. Appointing judges ensures that they are selected based on their qualifications, experience, and legal expertise, rather than their popularity or political connections. This system is intended to protect the rights of individuals and minorities, even when those rights are unpopular with the majority.
