1. Courts vs. elected branches in protecting individuals:

Courts can protect individual rights better than elected branches because they’re less influenced by short-term politics and public opinion. Elected officials often focus on keeping voters and donors happy, which can lead them to pass laws that serve powerful groups rather than protect everyone equally. Courts, on the other hand, can focus on whether actions follow the Constitution. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court ended segregation in schools, even though many elected leaders—especially in the South—still supported it. This shows how courts can challenge unjust laws that benefit the wealthy or powerful.

2. Are federal courts anti-democratic?

Federal judges are appointed, not elected, and serve for life. Some call this anti-democratic because citizens don’t choose them directly. The system was designed this way to keep judges independent from political pressure, but it also means the wealthy, capitalist class has more influence over who gets appointed. As Federalist #10 explains, the government was built to limit the direct influence of the general public and protect the interests of those in power. This structure makes the courts less likely to be swayed by popular demands, but more likely to reflect the priorities of the elite who shape the system.