1. The federal court system, as a judgment venue, can often provide better protection for individual rights compared to elected branches because the federal courts are independent and nonpartisan and are primarily concerned with the constitutional interpretation of actions.
As mentioned in Reading 11.1 – “The Dual Court System”, the United States operates under a dual legal system where one has two courts of law- federal and state courts. This system offers many opportunities for individuals to seek refuge in courts against possible rights violations. For instance, if a state court fails to enforce adequate constitutional protections sufficiently, an individual can appeal that case up to the federal level and sometimes the Supreme Court.
In contrast, Congress, city governments such as the NYC Assembly, and other elected bodies play up to public opinion, political parties, and pressure groups. Most of the time, what comes out of this process is the majority will, but this then infringes on minority rights. Judge, as in Reading 11.2 – “The Federal Court System” appointed federal judges spend their lives in office and do not have to be elected, thus giving them the freedom to decide according to the law without political pressure.
Sample: Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
It was a Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriages in all 50 states. Courts at several states and their elected officials refused to pass any law stating equality to marriage. But an election-defying supreme court ruled that marriage rights, thus providing individual rights under the 14th Amendment, could not be denied to same-gender couples.
2. Yes, the Supreme Court may be considered antidemocratic, but in a protective and intentional sense. As explained in Reading 11.3 – “The Supreme Court” and in Exercise 11.2 – “Federal Courts and the Public”, Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges are not elected by the public but rather appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They have lifetime appointments, so they do not have to answer to the voters or the vagaries of political trends.
This seems to be an undemocratic design, but with clear intentions. It was inferred from Federalist No. 10 that the provisions of factionalism would suppress minority groups by majority rule. By excluding judges from the elections’ influence, the founders ensured that at least one branch of government would be obliged to keep its focus solely on interpreting and upholding the Constitution, even when that Constitution would have to buck popular opinion.
Moreover, the justification for lifetime appointments implies that judges be highly trained legal professionals and not politicians. The reading entitled “Federal Courts and the Public” outlines courts as having access into everyday lives through a fair trial, civil liberties, and checks against legislative and executive action.
This structure puts a limitation on direct democracy input. However, it plays an important role in maintaining balanced stability and constitutional rights protections across time.
