1. The court system is usually able to protect personal liberties better than the legislative branch because the judicial system’s goal is to interpret and apply the law in a fair manner, unaffected by political pressures or public opinion. Elected officials, on the other hand, like congressmen or mayors, are usually elected for the very reason that they keep most voters satisfied, thus securing their position. Judges should make their decisions according to the constitution and the existing laws. A perfect example of this is Brown v. Board of Education (1954), where the Supreme Court ruled that the practice of racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, even though it was held by many elected officials that desegregation was wrong because it was unpopular with the voters. This case shows that the courts can indeed protect the rights of individuals, even when the majority is against it.
2. The Supreme Court and federal courts indeed, in fact, do not represent democracy because the judges are not people’s choice, but that is, however, the way it is supposed to be. The authors of the Constitution wanted it this way to avoid political influence over the courts. The authors of the ruling party, referring to Federalist #10, stated that; the court system was one thing that mostly concerned them in terms of protecting the government against the adversities of majority rule or “mob rule,” where the majority could violate the rights of the minorities or individuals just because it was their opinion. By means of appointing judges, the system guarantees that the more educated and, often, upper or professional class people are going to be the interpreters of the law and the power of reason and justice, not that of popularity. So, even if the courts look anti-democratic, their function is to prevent the majority from exercising power over the rights of the individuals and hence to create a balance in democracy.
