Final answer:
Courts have the ability to protect 'meek and unsophisticated' individuals, considering the specific details of each case, but must balance this with the potential influence of special interests and the need to serve the broader public. The court's approach has both strengths and limits, related to its capacity to protect rights while maintaining governance for the common good.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether the court should exhibit a higher degree of concern for individuals described as "meek and unsophisticated" involves complex considerations. On one hand, courts possess a unique ability to protect individuals, particularly those who may not have strong representation or who may be easily overlooked by the legislative or executive branches. The judicial system's focus on individual rights and case-specific considerations allows it to offer protection to those who may not find it elsewhere.
However, the potential drawbacks of this approach include the creation of a system where special-interest groups and public opinion could unduly influence judicial rulings. This could undermine the legal principles of impartiality and justice for all. Additionally, allocating more court resources to specific individuals could result in inefficiencies or diminish the court's ability to serve the broader public interest.
Strengths and Limits of Court Protection
The strengths of the court system include its capacity to deliberate on and safeguard individual rights without immediate political pressures. Yet, the limits emerge from the courts' need to balance individual rights with the government's need to govern effectively and protect the common good, which can present challenges when deciding how best to serve both individual and societal interests.