- 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 it operates independently of public opinion and political pressure. Judges at the federal level, are not elected based on popularity or party affiliation. That way they can focus on interpreting the law and the Constitution rather than catering to voters or political donors. This independence makes courts a safeguard for minority rights and unpopular opinions that might be overlooked by the majority. A recent example is Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), where the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage across the United States.
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 fact they are appointed and not elected is away to shield them from political pressures. That way judges remain impartial and arent subject to political leverage or influence but now adays the orginal purpose has been corrupted. I dont think it is an anti democratic part of our government becasue we arent a democratic nation but rather a constitutional republic.
