1.) Every case that must be presented within a court is evaluated to determine which kind of court they must be heard in. In the court system, there is the “Federal” or “State” that can hear both about individual cases but for distinct reasons. Many cases are heard within the State court system and these cases usually pertain to civil and criminal circumstances. If we had to compare the court system to any type of elected branches of government, it is believed that the court system is better suited to handle an individual’s protection. Considering that the “State” courts are the first step in the process and handle approximately 90% of individual cases, it is safe to say that this is correct. State courts handle most cases that correspond to an individual’s trouble, such as felonies, misdemeanors, personal injuries, family law, etc… These are all but a few of the many dilemmas that this form of court hears daily. Many of these are issues that require one to hear an individual(s) out and promote justice to those that are deserving. Considering such a fact, elected branches of government hear cases as well but only for certain matters. Most of the time when they decide to focus on a case, it usually goes beyond an individual’s protection but a broader outlook. To name a few; cases that deal with the constitutionality of a law, disputes amongst two or more states, cases involving ambassadors and public ministers, etc… All cases are matters that affect the country instead of a single individual. Not to mention, they take on matters that are more controversial and require a bigger change. A prime example of a case that resembles such is Brown v. Board of Education. This was case where the U.S. Supreme Court declared state laws that established separate public schooling for students of different races to be unconstitutional. During this time, African Americans that had resided in the South of the country faced racial segregation and were not permitted to have the same opportunities as others. Being that the Supreme Court found this unconstitutional, it meant that they referred to the Amendments. The Amendments were made to protect individual freedoms, but it is a freedom that was stripped from these American citizens. Thus, these two forms of courts differentiate substantially. 

2.) An individual who has the potential to become a judge goes through the process of being appointed rather than elected. Typically, the process sometimes involves the President’s choosing from among a list of candidates that is maintained by the American Bar Association. After that, a discussion about their choice takes place in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Thus, there is a vote that must be confirmed by the full Senate. This process has been deemed by many as biased to Democrats or anti-democratic because Republicans usually have the upper hand on who gets elected. Given that most of these individuals that make up the Republican party are quite wealthy and are white, whereas the Democratic party comprise of Blacks. Each side has their own perspectives on certain matters and would want to elect a candidate that meets the needs of the wealthy individuals. Not to mention, when a “vacancy” occurs in a lower federal court, the President consults with that state’s U.S. Senators to make a nomination. This is also known as “senatorial courtesy,” the Senators would be in relation to the same party as the President. Making their choice biased and, in some cases, a Senator can oppose a nominee just by voicing their opposition. So, when you look at it from either angle, the reason for choosing judges this way will result in increasing the population size of a certain party and ensuring that they keep the same revolving interests. Republicans continue to dominate and this party is known to be full of white rich men that only want more individuals around them that have the same mindset; money. You can think of each side with their own side of people that share a common interest and goal.