Why is the Judicial Branch the least understood?

Answer 1

Two reasons, mainly. First, it has no power to act on its own. Second it has no power to enforce what it does. The courts make rulings only within proper lawsuits (called cases and controversies in the US Constitution). Unless there is a lawsuit raising an issue of proper application of a law, the court has no power to act. Even if a law is passed by Congress that is obviously unconstitutional, the courts may not simply take it upon themselves to review it. It has to sit and wait and see if anyone sues to challenge it.

Next, when it does act and, for example, declares a law unconstitutional, it has no power to enforce its decree. It needs the President and his co-operation in enforcing the Court's judgments. One time Chief Justice John Marshall's Supreme Court made a ruling that President Andrew Jackson did not like. It has been said that later Jackson remarked that it is Marshall's ruling, let him enforce it. Not all historians believe this but it is an indication of how the judicial branch needs the executive branch to operate effectively.

There is a delicate balance at work here. The Supreme Court's ruling must be accepted as correct, even if the President believes it is wrong. He has sworn to uphold the Constitution, not just those parts he agrees with. If he deliberately refuses to enforce a Supreme Court ruling, Congress has the power to impeach him/her and perhaps remove him/her from office for failing to uphold the Constitution. So Congress's power of impeachment hangs over the President's head as a means to make the President enforce all of the laws, including ones he does not like.

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 2

Someone could argue that the federal judiciary is the least democratic part of the federal government because federal judges are appointed by the President, rather than elected by citizens. Federal judges receive lifetime appointments.

Answer 3

Members of the executive and legislative branches are elected to office and they therefore have to campaign, and explain themselves to the public, whereas members of the judicial branch are (mostly) appointed, and therefore they do not have to campaign and do not explain themselves to the public. In addition, the legal issues that the judiciary deals with are more technical than the broader policy issues that are dealt with by the other two branches.

Answer 4

Some say it's because federal judges are appointed by the president rather than voted by the people.