1. The court system is better suited to protect individual rights because it is designed to be impartial and based on the Constitution and legal precedent, rather than political pressures. Unlike elected branches like Congress or the President, judges are not swayed by the need to appeal to voters or campaign donors. A clear example of this is the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), where the Court declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional even though segregation was widely accepted and supported by many elected officials at the time. This decision upheld individual rights against the will of the majority, which shows how the judiciary can serve as a safeguard for minorities and protect civil liberties.
  2. I agree that the way federal judges are appointed, rather than elected, can seem anti-democratic because it takes power away from the general public. However, this design is intentional. Federalist #10 warns about the dangers of majority rule and how factions (groups driven by shared interests) can sometimes threaten individual rights or the common good. By having judges appointed for life terms, the judicial branch is insulated from the influence of these factions and from public opinion that might be unjust or discriminatory. While this system may not be democratic in the traditional sense, it helps ensure that justice is based on law and principle rather than popularity. That said, it’s important to recognize that the appointment process still reflects power dynamics those in higher social and political classes have more influence, which can raise concerns about representation and fairness.

Leave a Reply