- 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 allows for there to be multiple different levels/areas of courts to refer to if someone is not satisfied with their individual outcome. They also can examine your personal situation. The government structure, however, often creates orders that may not be disputable in another area, as well as the fact that orders and laws are created to apply to the entire people and not just one individual’s situation. For example, someone in Florida charged with marijuana use can refer to the Miami court which may see it as decriminalized. A general ban from congress does not have other options to refer to.
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 a judge is only one person, but a jury is much more aligned with democracy as it involves a group of people that vote and thus I think cases should be tried by a jury. Also, a jury is selected from every day American citizens, whereas a judge has certain qualifications to meet. Federalist 10 talks about how people are allowed to have different opinions and drives in this country, and a jury represents a diversity of occupation and opinion whereas a judge is a particular job and way of thinking.
