1. The judiciary often displays a far better knack for the protection of individual rights compared to the elected branches of government, for a few fundamental reasons. Generally, however, judges are duty bound to be impartial, basing decisions on legal statutes and constitutional law but not yielding to political pressure or public sentiment. It is this apoliticalism that means they can actively defend individual rights in situations where such defense is invidious or politically fraught. Second, the courts have the ability of judicial review, the power to strike down legislative and executive actions that violate constitutional rights. This function is a vital buffer against the powers of the legislature and the executive. Finally, reliance on established legal precedent fosters consistency and stability in the protection of individual rights, thus guaranteeing that similar cases will be adjudicated consistently over time. Perhaps the prime example of the judiciary’s contribution to the protection of individual rights is the one featured in the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The Supreme Court’s ruling, which effectively stated that state laws mandating the segregation of public schools for African American and Caucasian students were unconstitutional, was a key turning point in the battle against racial segregation, despite massive opposition from many elected officials and segments of society.

2. Federal judges, even Supreme Court justices, are appointed, not elected, and this has led to discussions of the democratic validity of the judicial system. A view, for example, is that the absence of direct responsibility makes the federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court, intrinsically undemocratic. Because federal judges are appointed and not elected, they lack public accountability, a feature that is arguably undemocratic because the public has no say in their appointment or removal. Furthermore, the lifetime tenure given to federal judges allows them to make decisions that could shape the nation for very long periods without the need for frequent electoral checkups. The procedure for the appointment of federal judges is exactly so structured as to isolate the judiciary from any undue political pressure and partisan quarrels, in order that the judges could at times base their decisions not only on the logic of precedent and litigation, but on the factual, legal and constitutional law framework of the nation.