1. The court system can protect individual rights better than elected branches like Congress or the President. This is because judges in the courts focus on interpreting the law fairly, without needing to worry about being re-elected or making popular choices. Elected officials, on the other hand, sometimes focus more on what will get them votes, which may not always protect every individual’s rights equally.

For example, think about a case where a person’s right to free speech is threatened by a new law passed by Congress. If that law becomes popular with voters, Congress might not want to change it. But a judge in the court system can rule that the law goes against the Constitution, even if it’s unpopular to do so. This way, the court system helps protect individual rights without worrying about political pressure.

2. Federal judges, like those in the Supreme Court, are appointed instead of being elected. This is why some people say that the Supreme Court is “anti-democratic” because the people don’t directly choose these judges. I agree that it seems less democratic because we, the people, don’t have a direct say in who becomes a judge. However, there is a reason for this.

The framers of the Constitution, like James Madison in “Federalist #10,” worried about what he called “the tyranny of the majority” — where one big group of people could push for laws that may hurt smaller groups. By appointing judges instead of electing them, the court system can focus on protecting the rights of all individuals, including minorities. This setup helps keep a balance between popular opinion and the fair treatment of every person in society, no matter their background.