What role do judges and the judicial system play in supporting freedom?

                        The judicial system was created to interpret the laws of our country and protect citizens’ rights, the limitation of simply interpreting current laws rarely allows for new reform not already supported by legislation elsewhere.  The lack of social or legal reform by the judicial system or its judges only allows them to support our freedom through the interpretation of state or federal laws.  The process or action is called judicial review.  Judicial review is described in the text by saying” The principle of judicial supremacy gives the courts the power of judicial review, which permits them to nullify or overturn any federal, state, or public law that conflicts with the Constitution.”[1]  In certain instances a judge’s ability to make a decision on a wrongful termination lawsuit or a discrimination lawsuit is really how they support our freedoms.  Through diligent interpretation of the current laws is how our rights are protected by the judicial system.

            The problems associated with how the judicial system supports our freedoms is derived from the separation between Federal and State courts and more importantly how judges are chosen in each court system.  The State courts are defined structurally by the state and the majority of the individual states today elect their judges during election years.  The democratic selection of most state’s judges makes their legal decisions more inline with the perceptions of the people who voted them in.  In contrast Federal judges are chosen by the President and then approved by the U.S senate. The very one sided appointment to federal judges makes them unaccountable to the citizens who are affected by their legal decisions.  Furthermore the lifelong appointments given when you are selected to be a federal judge means that judges who make decisions that the public majority would disagree with can’t be removed from office.  The text goes on to explain that “citizens cannot judge the judges and remove them. “[2]

In all I really don’t like how federal judges are appointed.  While I’ve learned from the book that the majority of cases filed in the U.S. are handled by state judges, I find it very scary that some of the big cases that affect U.S. policies regarding energy and economy could be handled by someone who is soo old they would be completely out of touch.  Also I feel that being a judge that long could really go to someone’s head.   It would go to mine. J

If all but Supreme Court justices were democratically voted in how do you think it would affect the current judicial system?

Would the appointment of predominantly Hispanic judges change how illegal citizens are prosecuted in America?

I chose not to add this because some might find it offensive but I found it quite entertaining.
mwahahahahahaha

http://race42012.com/2009/06/10/political-cartoons/, Accessed 3/20/2011

---

[1] Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011

[2] Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011

How does the U.S. Congress, as it exists in its current structure, support and/or limit authentic representation?

The U.S. congress today would seem to the common citizen to be a very democratic or representative legislative body, but the truth is that our Congress is hardly that at all.  I find that to be true because the people who are democratically voted in as congress people are very rarely representative of the people who voted them into office.  The socioeconomic background of Congress people differs vastly compared to the people they supposedly represent the interests of.  The book describes the relationship by stating: “...It matters whether the social backgrounds of members of Congress are roughly similar to those of the people they ostensibly represent.”[1]

            Another reason I find Congressional representation less than authentic is related to the business of lobbying.  Lobbying is the practice of special interest groups to influence members of Congress through the promise of campaign funding, fundraising assistance for a campaign or a mutually advantageous arrangement where the lobbying group would promise to donate or fund special programs the congress person is personally vested in.  Apparently people who are passionate about certain issues but lack monetary backing won’t make very good lobbyist and have a poor chance at influencing any segment of Congress.  That being said, socioeconomically disadvantaged people have little to no hope for anyone lobbying Congress on their behalf or for issues that affect them.  The text book goes on and quantifies the actual estimated amount spent on lobbying in the past few years “In 1998, total spending on lobbying reached $1.4billion. Ten years later, in 2008, lobbying by companies, unions and other interest groups cost $3.3billion…”[2]

            Overall we can see that while Congressional decision making is very accessible to the public, the legislative process is not without inequities that are almost impossible to overcome.  I wish personally that more people would find value in running for these elected offices so we would have representation that would reflect the common person.  I’m not just talking about representation by so called minorities which in fact are not that anymore because of population growth over the last decade but representatives that would put some heart into what they are doing.

---

[1]  Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011

[2] Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011

In what ways does the U.S. Presidency support and limit the formation of an ideal democracy?

Firstly, I find it hard to define what exactly a ideal democracy might be.  The various definitions I find explain that a democracy is a form of government where ALL of the people cast votes in fair elections to decide who in their government will represent them and make decisions that will influence them.  The presidency doesn’t necessarily support or limit the formation of the aforementioned.   In many ways the president is more “the peoples candidate” than other elected officials because of the hype and popularity the position attracts.  The unit rule which directs the electoral college’s votes to the state’s cumulative popular vote is proof that normally the person elected as president is the voting majority’s favorite as well.

In contrast the very existence of the position of president in American government undermines some peoples perceptions of an ideal democracy because of the overwhelming power the position wields in comparison to other elected offices.  The power the president has may seem overtly abundant but the original purpose of the position was to be an executive power that can help the progression of government, legislation and law making.   The famous historical American revolutionary Alexander Hamilton sited that” a strong executive was necessary to provide leadership and decisiveness to a government that could otherwise drift and be stalemated in a system of checks and balances.”[1]  I sincerely agree with Hamilton because I find that contemporary politics are driven by bi-partisan squabbles and our elected representatives very rarely agree enough on legitimate issues to make positive changes.   

Another aspect that may seem like the president undermines democracy is when his or her personal politics interfere with the majority of what our congress might vote for.  That scenario could be for the good or detriment to our country and government but the fact that a final veto could keep us out of war or prohibit irrational decision making from a majority ran congress is a positive to me.  I find it amazing that as the text book describes,” The constitution empowers the president to approve or veto legislation passed by congress, act as commander in chief of the armed forces, faithfully execute the laws, pardon criminals, make treaties call congress into special sessions, appoint government officials, and recognize foreign governments.”[2]   

Lastly, I believe that even though the position of American president may seem to many to be nothing more than an American Monarchal figurehead, historically American presidents have helped shape or world.

[1]  Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011

[2]   Katznelson,Ira. The politics of power. 6th ed. New York , London: W.W Norton, 2011

[3]    http://www.ineedmotivation.com/blog/2008/06/great-quotes-from-american-presidents/

 (accessed       3/6/2011).