Part of the Whole: The Supreme Court as an Enabler of Policy Change

In his influential 1957 Journal of Public Law article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker,” Robert Dahl argues for the Supreme Court's role as a policy arbiter, describing it as being pseudo-political, acting to contravene the political sphere and legislative maneuvering while itself remaining outside of political life. Even per the skeptical Dahl, the Court can be effective in shaping policy and thus be as effective a branch as the other two given certain circumstances. More inclusive evidence demonstrates the contrary; while the Court is able to judge a law or an act’s constitutionality, its powers to correct what it deems errors are nearly nonexistent. Gerald Rosenberg’s theoretical insight and methodological thoroughness brings Dahl, his methods, and his conclusions into dispute as he counters assertions of the Court’s efficacy in policymaking.

Despite its remarkable conclusions, Dahl's article lacks the comprehensive inquiries necessary for examining the Court's role as a policy arbiter and creator. The systemic influences of Court decisions are inadequately measured in the study, thanks in no small part to the limiting specifications that prevent a broad, incisive discourse on the topic. However, the Court's influence pervades both federal and state law in both word and in deed. To cover only one part and not the whole overestimates its agency. Firstly, he inadequately assesses the role of the Court's decisions in both non-legislative cases and in state laws; for example, he mentions “its famous school integration decisions,” (i.e., Brown v. Board of Education, Bolling v. Sharpe, and Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County), but neglects Plessy v. Ferguson, t...

... middle of paper ...

...terested parties to donate vast sums to campaigns and, in so doing, minimize the impact of their opponents’ campaigning. Seen as giving an unfair advantage to the wealthy, these decisions undermine the legitimacy of choice in American democracy and thus threaten the democratic institutions that the Constitution created and that laws protect. If this be the case, if the Supreme Court’s rulings challenge the spirit of the Constitution, the other branches of government are mandated to challenge it. If the Court inadvertently decides poorly, its ineffectiveness may prove a boon.

Works Cited

Dahl, R. A. (2001). Decision-making in a democracy: the Supreme Court as a national policy-maker. (Honorary Reprint). Emory Law Journal, 50(2), 563–582.

Rosenberg, G. N. (2008). The hollow hope : can courts bring about social change? Chicago: Chicago : University of Chicago Press.