The court system, particularly the federal courts, can better protect individual rights compared to elected branches of government due to the appointment process of judges. Unlike elected officials, federal judges are appointed, not elected. This means they are less susceptible to political pressures and can make decisions based on constitutional principles
rather than popular opinion.

For example, consider the Supreme Court’s role in protecting individual
rights during times of societal change.
In cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, the Court overturned laws that allowed racial segregation in public schools, despite significant public opposition. This decision was based on constitutional principles of equal protection under the law, which might have been undermined if left to elected officials influenced by majority opinion.

While some argue that the appointment process for federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, is
undemocratic, it can be viewed as a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority, as discussed in Federalist

The Founding Fathers recognized the dangers of unchecked majority rule and sought to establish a system where the judiciary could act as a check on legislative and executive branches influenced by popular
sentiments.

The appointment of federal judges also helps ensure a level of expertise and independence necessary for interpreting and upholding the law impartially. By relying on qualifications and experience rather than electoral politics, the federal courts can maintain their integrity and protect individual rights more effectively.
In conclusion, while the appointment process for federal judges may be perceived as anti-democratic by some, it serves as a vital mechanism for
protecting individual rights and upholding the rule of law in a democratic society.

sentiments.