Courts shield. Judges are isolated from political processes.

Accordingly, in deciding who should be the authoritative interpreter of the Constitution, the answer is the branch of government that can best enforce the Constitution's limits against the desires of political majorities. By this criterion, the federal judiciary is the obvious choice. It is the institution most insulated from political pressures.2 Article III of the Constitution provides that federal court judges have life tenure unless impeached and that their salary may not be decreased during their terms of office.28 Unlike legislators or the President, they never face reelection.

29 Furthermore, the method of federal judicial selection reinforces its antimajoritarian character. Unlike the House of Representatives, whose members are elected at the same time, or the Senate, where one-third of the members are chosen in each election, the President appoints the Court's members one at a time, as vacancies arise. 30 “Generally, no single administration is able to appoint a majority of the Court or the federal judiciary. The result is that the Court reflects many political views, not just the one that dominates at a particular time.

Other reasons exist, too, why the judiciary is the branch of government that is best suited to enforce the Constitution and should be deemed its authoritative interpreter. First, the judiciary is the only institution obligated to hear the complaints of a single person. For the most part, the federal judiciary's jurisdiction is mandatory. Although the Supreme Court can choose which cases to hear, a lower federal court must (with relatively rare exceptions)" rule on every case properly filed with it.32 Long ago, Chief Justice Marshall wrote, "It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given."