1- The way that the courts protect individuals, The court system, including judges and courts, is better at protecting individual rights because it is not based on popularity. Judges don’t have to win votes or make decisions that please a lot of people. Their job is to follow the Constitution and the law, even when it is unpopular. This means they can stand up for one person’s rights, even if the majority of people or government leaders disagree. But the elected branches (like the President, Congress, or a Mayor) are chosen by voters. So, they sometimes make decisions that serve most people—even if those decisions are unfair to some individuals. For example, you know that a law is passed by Congress that says a certain group of people cannot speak freely in public. But if someone takes this law to court, a judge can say, “This goes against the First Amendment, which protects free speech. This matters because leaders sometimes care more about what’s popular. And courts care more about what’s right.

2- Thinking about how federal judges get to become judges, I think the Supreme Court can seem anti-democratic because the justices are not elected by the people. Instead, they are chosen by the President and approved by the Senate. That means regular citizens don’t vote for them like they do for the President or members of Congress. So, in that way, yes—it is less democratic. But there’s a reason for this. In Federalist #10, James Madison said that sometimes the majority can make unfair decisions that hurt smaller groups. The courts are supposed to protect everyone’s rights, even if it goes against what most people want. That’s why judges are appointed, not elected—so they can be independent and not just try to please voters. Also, during that time, people believed that the upper class, like educated leaders, should help guide the country and make fair decisions.