Keep in mind our Online Discussion Guidelines:
https://openlab.bmcc.cuny.edu/pol-100-introduction-to-american-government-artinian/online-discussion-guidelines/
Instructions for completing this discussion board assignment:
a) Identify which discussion question you are answering in your comment by placing the relevant number at the start of your answer. For example:
2. Crime has often been used as a form of social control by…
4. Michelle Alexander’s argument about segregation…
b) Respond to two other students’ comments.
Respond to the following questions in the “Comment” box below:
- 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.
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.)
1. The court system is better suited to protect individuals rather than any other branch of government because the court system provides different areas that will better protect your rights. This means that there is going to be a part of the system where they will assist you if the case was not heard somewhere else. For example, the case of Miranda vs Arizona, he was protected by his fifth amendment violation so in this case the court system was in his favor over this violation.
2. I agree because the judges are chosen by the president and senate. It may be anti-democratic because the people have no say on who is becoming a judge, most of the choice comes from the senate and could be a biased choice on who will be chosen and reflect their own ideological state which is against democratic beliefs because everyone does not have an equal say on making this decision. The reason they do this is because they want the judges to only judge based on the law and not focus on political worries which is why they are appointed for life by the senate rather than the people.
Hey Kyara,
I like how well you demonstrated your ideas.
Very detailed! keep up the good work
I like how detailed your answers were.
1) In my opinion, the interpretation of the law varies from states to states, cities to cities. I believe that the court system is better suited to protect the individual because they are able to interpret and apply the local laws more effective than other elected officials.
2) I firmly believe that the way that federal judges selected is very anti-democratic. Federal judges should be elected by the people, not appointed. In my opinion, these federal judges are appointed because they are either friends or share the same ideas or policies of the government that appoints them
I like how your always straight forward with your answers and it can be understood very quickly.
Hi Jasmine, I like your process of answering the questions. Question #2 I found it to be very interesting. For many years the process of electing a new judge has remained the same and is highly anti-democratic.
1) The court system is better suited to protect the individual because within their manner of functioning, if any perceived violation of a liberty by the bill of rights, like freedom of speech, or the protection against cruel and unusual punishment, this then can be argued before the federal courts. However, in understanding this concept and amongst its individual and personal needs, state courts cover 90 percent of day to day cases. It is in which they will hear both civil and criminal matters; along with helping the states retain their own sovereignty in judicial matters over their state laws, distinct from the national government. Therefore, in the example of the Miranda vs Arizona case, it was protected by the court system as the police had violated Miranda’s fifth and sixth amendment, thereafter the original conviction was overturned.
2) In my opinion I do believe that the methods of the supreme court to appoint federal judges is anti-democractic as the public, and or community, can not participate within their own favor. It is ultimately biased that it unfavored the community’s opinion although its role is to help the community. However, what is majority focused on is the rules of the law.
hey i like how detailed your answer for number 1 is and how straight forward your answers were.
1. The court system is better suited to protect individuals because the court system has many branches that support the rights of individuals, Thus giving them the right to protect themselves or prove themselves innocent. This then protects them from unlawful arrest or punishments. For example in the case of Tinker v Des moines, where tinker and his brother where kicked out of school for waring black arm bands protesting against the Vietnam war but the court ruled their actions to be protected under the first amendment.
2. I do believe that the way they choose judges is anti-democracti.I believes judges should be voted in like a president or the congress or governor. Judges being appointed in by nominations from the upper class instead of voted in is a way of the rich making sure only certain people can become a judge, or only allowing people with the same views or ideas as one another.
your answers were very straight forward and help me understand better
I agree, it is unfair no to be able to give our opinion on who can be selected to be a judge. This gives an opportunity for the upper class to gain more power.
Great thought concept
1- I believe the court system is suited to protect individuals because it has many different branches that support the rights of people. In Texas vs Johnson he burned the flag but he later was let go because arresting him violated his first amendment because it was a form of symbolic speech.
I believe that federal judges selected are anti democratic. They should be elected by the people because they are appointed because they either know each other and share the same ideas which makes it easier It in such a way that only the upper class can vote someone in asa nominee but it should be the same way that the president is elected buts its not because tis ensure a judge that has the same views as them ad this ensure certain people can become a judge
Hi Sara, I like your process of answering the questions. Question #2 I found it to be very interesting. For many years the process of electing a new judge has remained the same and is highly anti-democratic.
I like how you used an example for question 1, i like your responses overall.
Hello Professor Arto and classmates 🙂
1. The court system that better suits to protect the individuals, that are the elected branches of government t (such as Congress and the President; or the Mayor of NYC and the NYC City Assembly is the court system. The court system has different branches that deal with different types of issues.
i.e. The fifth amendment protected the case of Miranda vs Arizona.
2. I strongly believe that the Supreme Court, for example, is an anti-democratic part of our government. It is my opinion that the Supreme Court is highly influenced by the Democratic party. Federalist #10 depicts that the rich or the elite are the ones who dictate the system and makes the rules. I believe the Supreme Court should follow in the same footsteps of the process that elect a president for the country.
1. The court system is suited to protect individuals because they are have the right to protect themselves from crimes they did not commit. In the courts they can fight a crime or a charge that they may be accused of and this is a good thing because they are innocent until proven guilty. One example of this could be the Miranda vs Arizona where the court has violated this fourth amendment rights and the court then was in his favor.
2.
Yes in my opinion the government is anti democratic part of the government because we the people do not get to choose the federal judges which is not fair I think that we should be able to choose our judges because they can listen to us. We should have an opinion of who we want to choose a federal judge. One reason could for this way of choosing judges in federal courts is because it is the rich who run the government system I think this is not fair because they choose who they want to choose but this is not fair because it is the people who should choose.
1. The court system is better suited to protect the individual because they are branches that can help and support peoples rights. The Judicial Branch is a right from the government that protects individuals rights from being targeted from committing crimes and violations.
2. I agree that the supreme court is an anti-democratic part of our government because judges should be nominated from the people, just like we have the right to vote for president. Even though we have the right to defend ourselves, who ever is selected to be judge, their could be some type of agreement or connection with the supreme court that can somehow incarcerate innocent people. This is proven in some cases, where innocent people has been charge for murder and being in prison for a lifetime. The supreme court will then say that the person is innocent after being in prison for so many years. Or criminals being sentenced for a few certain amount of years rather than a lifetime. This is why we the people should have the chance to give our opinion and help our community.
Excellent, you led this in the correct path
1. The court system is better suited to protect individuals due to the fact the the court system has multiple branches that help benefit different cases and they know how to deal with different issues.
2. I agree that the Supreme court is an anti democratic part of our government because they are bias when choosing the federal judges. The judges are appointed rather than being voted in.
I agree, its short and simple but very easy to understand.
Edmin Alicea
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.
Court systems are suited to protect citizens, because several of the government branches are supporting the individuals rights, which means to prove that he or she is innocent. that also gives them protection from any unnecessary arrest or punishments. lets take the Miranda vs Arizona for example. Miranda was protected by the 5th amendment and there was a violation during the case. which means the court system was in favor of the violation.
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.)
The way of how judges are chosen is very anti-democratic. there should be a vote like how mayor or governor gets elected so there should be election on voting for a judge.
1. It is the province and duty of the judiciary to interpret the law. The United States has a common law system whereby laws are developed through binding judicial decisions inherited from her colony, England. This “judge-made-laws” system allows the judicial system to offer strong law-making involvement, which is mainly done through rulings and interpretation. Utilizing their role as policymakers, they consider specific cases with a narrower approach, thereby focusing more closely than other government bodies such as the congress and the president. Unlike other government arms that tend to approach the public interest in polices implementation, weighing their costs and benefits, the courts focus more closely and offer exactness in the context of individuals, groups, and issues affecting them. This implies that the judiciary influences public policies through rulings and interpretations through cases brought to court, and their decisions help shape policies. This gives the court an edge in protecting the public over other arms of the government. Moreover, judges are not influenced by public opinions, especially politics. The judges decide based on public interests as they do not fear pleasing the public for reelection.
2. I believe that the court system, especially the Supreme Court, is the most anti-democratic institution whose power should be carefully circumscribed. Ironically, the lifetime tenure was supposed to depoliticize the court as they were shielded from political pressure, thereby putting justices above politics. To some degree, this was effective as judges were free from partisan influence as various political leaders have tried to sway them in vain. However, to some degree, politicians have impacted the court’s decisions, demonstrating that the court is not insulated from political pressure after all. Although it is important to protect justices from political pressure and electoral accountability, a lifetime appointment is unnecessary. Justices can be appointed in a fixed term without the possibility of renewal and still be unbiased or not bow to politicians. Thus, the appointment until voluntary retirement or death is not mandatory.