Taking the Justice system as a whole and defining the near quality of it goes as follows:"The justice system is a system of written laws, legal procedures, and courts that resolve disputes and punish the guilty"(p.205).  Some say that the Judiciary System is a support of freedom.  In some ways it is, in others I beg to question some concerning differences that follow an iron hand rather than the thought of freedom.
Equality for instance. Judge Sturgess made a quote that hits it on the dot: "Justice is open to everyone in the same way as the Ritz Hotel."  As in other blogs, I have expressed the lack of equality between the rich and the poor.  In a sociology class for instance I learned that if you are dressed nicely with a prestigous lawyer, you are more likely to get off easier than a person doing less but does not have a lawyer. "...The law can mask inequality by giving the impression that all citizens stand before the law as equals"(p.206).  The only way it seems that inequality can be abolished is if people were to become robots, with the constitutional rights written into the formula that maps their mind.  But we are only human, and humans are biased even if they think they are not.
Through the reading I also found an interesting fact: "Their [the courts] decisions usually follow and confirm reforms rather then cause them"(p.235).  It is the impression that the Judiciary system is more of a follower than a leader.  Laws are passed down from one level to the next until it gets to this system in which the appointed life term judges have to uphold those laws.
Now on to my critical question of the week:
How can the Judiciary system support freedom when it is not in control?
From everything that I have read so far on this system, I find the Judiciary system holds barely any control except to pass the law that was given to them and see it practiced accordingly. Still there are inequalities that are bothersome.

Congress

The guidelines of what congress is supposed to be about goes as follows: "Article I, section 8 enumerates Congress's powers to levy taxes, borrow and spend money, regulate interstate and foreign commerce, declare war, support the armed forces, create cours inferior to the Supreme Court, and, more generally, 'make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other power vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof'"(p.174).  Overall Congress has held up to the majority of their Constitutional rights and laws.  Congress is the one that passes those acts proposed by the president and the people, however the question of influence is a forbidding factor.  "Those with the most political resources outside of Congress are in the best position to take advantage of Congress's accessibility, to cultivate relationships with its members, committee and subcommittee chairs, and party leaders" (p.201).  In respect to this factor, influencing Congress and Presidential matters shifts the judgment from one side to another to create acts that might not need to be placed. This leads me to a cousin side note.  My mother, Jayne Bail is a member of the Colorado Association of Mortgage Professionals.  She currently is on a trip to Washington D.C. for a legislation day where state affiliates get together to see Congressmen.  This may not be an area of interest to most but the view she expresses in her interview is just an example of how this system works.
Currently the mortgage industry is having major issues about the structure of their pay.  She and others in the committee set out to D.C. to stop section 14-01 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which regulates how a loan originator can be paid from a transaction.  They will ask Congress to impead the federal reserve board from trying to implement the regulation.  Under her perception, the act should not include the section because the act was passed without proof that there was abuse or dishonesty in the first place.
 "Congress is usually quite vague in its legislative instructions for agencies because it cannot anticipate all the contingencies and agency might encounter and because Congress hopes to avoid criticism and controversy by being too specific"(p.197).  The previous quote illustrates that it may seem that Congress is more worried about its own reputation then setting down clear stated rules. In addition the Federal Reserve Board has not provided clear regulations and procedures of how mortgage loan orginaters are supposed to be paid or structured. Ms. Bail's hope is to get Congress involved, especially those part of Congress that don't want to get involved and would rather avoid the subject and move on. (Jayne Bail)


References: "The Politics of Power," Katznelson
Interview with Jayne Bail, Main Street Lending Corp., Secretary of Colorado Association of Mortgage Professionals.

U.S. Presidency support and limit an ideal democracy.

 "When discontented groups express grievances, presidents often take to the media to mollify them"(p.163).   One way that the U.S. Presidency is known to support an ideal democracy is through sympathy.  Clinton was well known for his sympathetic ways which kept the peace of the public because they were under belief that it would be taken care of.  After sympathetically agreeing with groups to search into the problem, commissions are formulated  such as the Commission on Race. However, "after one year and many public meetings, the commission's report was ignored and quickly forgotten, like countless presidential commissions preceding it"(p.163).  So we can certainly say that the Presidency attempts to support an ideal democracy, but it seems that the majority of the time it reverts back to its own power of presidency as those groups are forgotten.
The limitations of the U.S. Presidency on an ideal democracy comes at a much heavier hand of information. "Presidents have expanded the power of the presidency by interpreting broadly their authority as commander and chief"(p.154). Through and through the presidents seem to limit themselves as they get almost power hungry, side stepping what a democracy is supposed to be rather and creating this mirage of a government rather than actually meeting it head on as was their assigned position. "They [the Founders] used the Constitution itself to expressly limit the powers of their own government officials"(Hornberger). These rules were set down for a reason. One because the population has never trusted a one supreme person making all the decisions, and two because democracy in any way that you look at it is a threat to freedom. 
Why do we allow the president to take more and more power away from the people?
My answer?....because the presidents one after the other have been able to increase their power without the people realizing.  Until now when the last two presidents are patronized for the way they handle the government. But nothing is being done to stop their power. They even have the ability to send troops across seas without congress conformation, although they do anyways but it seems like a show now instead of a need. 

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0100a.asp (Jacob Hornberger)