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 often better at protecting individual rights than the elected branches of government because judges are supposed to follow the constitution and the law, even when it’s unpopular, elected officials like the president, congress, or a city mayor sometimes focus more on what will get them votes or please their supporters, that idea can mean ignoring or even going against the rights of individuals or minority groups.

An example is the supreme court case Brown v. Board of education which the court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, even though many elected officials, especially in the south, supported segregation, the court protected the rights of african american students when other branches wouldn’t, so this an example of how following the constitution was more important than what the powerful people said or thought

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.)

=Judges in federal courts, including the supreme court, are not elected, they are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate and because of that, some people say the courts are “anti-democratic,” since the public doesn’t vote for them, like in other countries but when it comes to U.S the founders of the U.S. like James Madison (who wrote Federalist #10), were worried about “majority rule” becoming too powerful and ignoring the rights of smaller or less popular groups, they said that a completely democratic system could lead to something like “tyranny of the majority.” So this means that by having judges appointed instead of elected, the system was designed to make sure some people in government wouldn’t be influenced by politics or public pressure, they could focus on the law and the constitution even if their decisions weren’t popular.

Also, many of the people who designed this system were wealthy and educated elites, and they thought that those like them should help lead the country, since they believed they were more “qualified” to make decisions, that is the reason of why the government is the way it is nowadays.