Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker

The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.
Dahl conducted his study on the decision making of the Supreme Court and whether the Court exercised its power of judicial review to counter majority will and protect minority rights or if it used the power to ratify the further preferences of the dominant “national law making majority.” From the results of Dahl’s study he builds numerous arguments throughout his article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker”. In what follows, I will thoroughly point out and explain each of the arguments that Dahl constructs in his article.
After Dahl reviewed his research findings he concluded that the Court was only rarely willing to counter Congress’s preferences by striking legislation. According to Dahl, “the Supreme Court is inevitably a part of the dominant national alliance. As an element in the political leadership of the dominant alliance, the Court, of course supports the major policies of the alliance” (293). This explains to readers that although the Supreme Court does somewhat consider other bodies of government, overall, it attempts to act as its own body when making decisions.
Dahl also sought to understand whether or no...

... middle of paper ...

...it from protecting the rights of minorities and from becoming a true proponent of social change. In conclusion, the Court is a somewhat constrained institution in that it only responds to the demands and whims of society. The Court's dependency upon society for case initiation as well as case enforcement prevents the Court from rendering decisions entirely opposed to societal opinion, thus why the Court can never fully lead social change within the United States. This is why, “at its best the Court operates to confer legitimacy, not simply on the particular and parochial policies of the dominant alliance, but upon the basic patterns of behavior required for the operation of a democracy” (Dahl 295).

Works Cited

Dahl, Robert. 1957. “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National
Policy-Maker." Journal of Public Law 6: 279-295.