The significant impact that Robert Dahl's article, "Decision Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policymaker" has created for our reflection on according to the Supreme Court it has completely opened the way to the example of the relationship between public opinion and the Supreme Court of the United States. Dahl was able to provide connections between the Supreme Court and its surrounding environment so that others can better understand the fundamental aspects that connect the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court. Dahl conducted his study on the Supreme Court's decision and whether the Court exercised its power of judicial review to thwart the will of the majority and protect the rights of minorities or whether it used the power to ratify the further preferences of the dominant "majority" national legislation". From the results of the study, Dahl develops numerous arguments in his article “Decision-making in a democracy: the Supreme Court as a national policymaker”. In what follows, I will point out and explain in depth each of the arguments that Dahl builds in his article. After Dahl reviewed the results of his research, he concluded that the Court was only rarely willing to thwart Congressional preferences by striking down legislation. According to Dahl, “the Supreme Court is inevitably a part of the dominant national alliance. As an element of 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 somewhat considers other government bodies, overall, it attempts to act as its own body when making decisions. Dahl also tried to figure out whether or not... middle of paper... ....it from protecting minority rights and becoming a true advocate for social change. In conclusion, the Court is a somewhat constrained institution as it responds only to the demands and whims of society. The Court's dependence on society for initiating cases and enforcing cases prevents the Court from issuing decisions completely contrary to society's opinion, which is why the Court can never fully guide social change in the United States. This is why, “at its best, the Court works to confer legitimacy, not simply on the particular and parochial policies of the dominant alliance, but on the basic patterns of behavior required for the functioning of a democracy” (Dahl 295) . , Robert. 1957. “Decision Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as National Policymaker.” Journal of Public Law 6: 279-295.