- The court system is often better at protecting individual rights than elected branches of government because it focuses on interpreting and enforcing constitutional principles, without being influenced by political pressures or public opinion. Unlike elected officials, who may make decisions based on what is popular or politically convenient, courts are designed to be neutral and uphold the law to ensure fairness, even if the decision is not widely supported.
Example: Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
A strong example of the court system protecting individual rights is the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education. This decision ended racial segregation in public schools, ruling that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. At the time, many parts of the U.S. accepted segregation, and elected officials avoided challenging it due to political resistance and public opposition. The Court’s decision ensured that African American students had the right to equal education, even though the political branches failed to act. This case shows how courts can uphold constitutional rights, even when elected leaders prioritize political concerns or the views of the majority.
Why Courts Are Better at Protecting Rights
- Impartiality: Judges are not influenced by the need to appeal to voters, allowing them to make fair decisions based on the law.
- Constitutional Oversight: Courts have the power to ensure that government actions follow the Constitution, acting as a check on other branches.
- Protecting Minorities: Courts play a key role in defending the rights of minorities or individuals who may not have broad public support.
2. The Supreme Court and federal courts are often called anti-democratic because judges are appointed, not elected, and don’t answer directly to the public. Unlike Presidents, Mayors, or members of Congress, who are chosen through elections, federal judges are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. This setup keeps judges away from public opinion and political pressures, which some people believe goes against the idea of democracy. However, this system has a purpose. It allows judges to focus on interpreting the Constitution fairly, without worrying about elections or pleasing voters. In Federalist #10, James Madison warned about the dangers of factions and how majority rule could harm the rights of minorities. By appointing judges, the judicial branch can act independently, protecting individual rights and upholding the law without being influenced by short-term political goals.This way of choosing judges also reflects the intentions of the framers of the Constitution, who were mostly elites. They wanted to avoid decisions driven by popular opinion and create a system with checks and balances. Appointed judges were meant to act as a neutral force, focusing on justice rather than politics.
