1. Individual rights are frequently better protected by the legal system, particularly the federal courts, than by elected officials like the president or members of Congress. Given that judges are not chosen by the general public, this may initially seem strange. In fact, though, that’s one of the reasons they excel in this work. Consider this: elected leaders are constantly concerned with the opinions of the electorate. Even if their decisions are the right ones, they may refrain from making them because they want to be re-elected. In contrast, federal judges are appointed for life. They may concentrate on interpreting the law and defending rights without worrying about public opinion since they are not concerned about winning the next election.
In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court held that defendants in criminal cases have the right to legal representation under the Sixth Amendment, even if they are unable to pay for one. This decision is an example of how the judicial system upholds individual rights. Low-income people frequently had to face criminal prosecution without legal representation prior to this ruling since many states did not offer public defenders for defendants in non-capital cases. Due to his inability to pay for counsel, Florida man Clarence Earl Gideon was compelled to represent himself in a felony trial. He petitioned the Supreme Court after being found guilty, claiming that his right to a fair trial had been infringed by his lack of counsel. The Court concurred, holding that having legal counsel is crucial to a fair trial and to defending one’s rights in the judicial system. Since it required funding for public defense, which may be politically unpopular or financially difficult, elected leaders had not addressed this issue in every state. But thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision, states are now required to offer legal representation to defendants who cannot afford it. This greatly advances the protection of disadvantaged individuals’ rights and makes sure that justice is accessible to everyone, not just those who can afford it.
This does not imply that elected authorities cannot uphold rights or that the courts are infallible. However, it demonstrates how the legal system, somewhat isolated from public opinion, can occasionally be more effective in defending individual rights, particularly for marginalized groups who may not have much political clout. It’s one way our government attempts to strike a balance between upholding everyone’s rights and majority rule.
2. A common criticism of the federal court system in the US government is that it is anti-democratic, especially the Supreme Court. Federal judges are appointed, not elected, and serve lifelong terms, in contrast to Presidents, Members of Congress, and other elected authorities. They are shielded from direct public accountability by this framework, which also permits them to make choices that might go against popular opinion. This anti-democratic nature is further reinforced by the Supreme Court’s ability to overturn laws passed by elected officials through the process of judicial review.
Nonetheless, the Founding Fathers deliberately established this system to fulfill particular functions within the larger context of American democracy. James Madison stressed the necessity of mediating conflicts between conflicting societal interests and safeguarding against the perils of factions, as covered in Federalist No. 10. By protecting minority rights and upholding a long-term view of constitutional values, the federal judiciary—which is free from direct democratic pressures—was meant to carry out this function. The lifetime tenure and appointment procedure were designed to guarantee that these important positions would be filled by highly competent people, frequently with prestigious professional and educational backgrounds.
Since there are legitimate worries about the federal courts’ anti-democratic orientation, it’s crucial to understand that their design was meant to strike a compromise between long-term stability, fundamental rights protection, and democratic responsiveness. In the face of shifting political trends, the court was intended to act as a stabilizing force and a check on the possible tyranny of the majority. However, discussions concerning whether this system still fulfills its intended function or whether changes are required to better conform to contemporary democratic values have heated up as the courts’ influence over policy has grown and the nomination process has become more politicized.
