1. It is better suited to protect individual rights, rather than the elected branches, because it is truly independent, truly impartial, and insulated from popular politics. Whereas Elected officials must always be concerned with voters and political interests, judges can focus on what the Constitution and the law require. Courts offer an added protection to the rights of minorities, too, against the popular will. A sterling example of this is the case of Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, whereby the U.S. Supreme Court nullified racial segregation in public schools against strong political resistance from the states and localities. This case vividly demonstrates how courts can protect individuals from government actions that violate constitutional rights when elected officials might be unwilling or unable to take action due to political pressures.
  2. In fact, a procedure of appointment, rather than election, was devised for federal judges as a check against the possible undue influences of factionalism and special interest groups on the courts. Appointed judges are expected to be knowledgeable of the law, experienced in its practice, and to view their appointments as long term opportunities to shape the meaning of laws and constitutional principles, independent of the whims of an electorate that may change its mind from one election to another. It is also fair to conclude that although the Supreme Court should not necessarily be held accountable through elections to the public, it is nonetheless in fact a part of democracy. The Insulation of the judiciary from political pressures is, through the intellectually sound creation of the framers via the Constitution, one sure fire way of protecting individual rights and upholding the rule of law, both constituent components of democracy. The courts achieve a balance in powers so that no one group-a majority or powerful fractions-infringes on constitutional rights, while meting out justice in a fair and equitable manner.

Leave a Reply