1. The courts can usually better protect the rights of the individual compared to political institutions of government, such as Congress or the President or the Mayor, because they are removed from the political pressures that bind elected members. Judges do not feel subject to the need to get votes or to appease party interests. Therefore, they can remain unbiased and focus on constitutional principles and individual rights. The Supreme Court can ensure people’s rights even when the popular consensus or elected representatives hold a contrary view. For example, the matter of the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. While politicians may have been motivated by issues of national security and public opinion during the war, the Court, while initially affirming the internment in Korematsu v. United States (1944), had subsequent opportunity to revisit and hone its position towards individual rights in later decisions (albeit the Korematsu case itself was never technically overruled, but was subject to fervent criticism and overshadowed by later holdings). Earlier, in the recent past, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) is a case in which the Court protected individual rights (same-sex marriage) against the majority of states and the then-prevailing public opinion. This indicates how the Court is ready to protect individuals even against the political tide. On the other hand, elected government branches may avoid unpopular options because their survival is founded on popular favor and re-election. For instance, the majority of politicians may be reluctant to implement policies that protect minority groups or end racial discrimination if such actions are unpopular with a large portion of their constituents or interest groups sponsoring their campaigns. Thus, the Court has the unique advantage of being shielded from the pressure to respond to the moods of voters, and hence it is more likely to be effective at protecting individual rights, especially when the majority may not be in favor.

2. Yes, in a way the Supreme Court is an anti-democratic institution of our government because justices are not elected by the people themselves. Unlike Congressmen and women, the President, or even elected officials such as mayors, Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once confirmed, they sit for lifetime appointments, that is, they do not directly report to the public and are not held accountable through elections. But this is done intentionally and serves a very important role in our government. As described in Federalist #10, James Madison warned of the ills of “factions” and the danger of a majority being able to easily overpower the rights of people or minorities. By making the Supreme Court independent of public opinion and political pressure, the framers ensured that it would be capable of upholding constitutional rights even when they happen to be unpopular or under threat from the majority. Our elite social class is also reflected in the appointment process. It was believed that individuals who were educated, experienced, and trained as lawyers—most likely members of the upper classes—would best be able to interpret the law justly and think in terms of long-term consequences. Although this would inhibit direct democratic influence, it ensures a stable system of law with justice at heart rather than politics. Thus although the Supreme Court is not so much democratic in the traditional sense, its structure is such that it works to protect the rights of citizens and minorities, so that the law can prevail over the whimsical gusts of public opinion.