法官是否能夠制定美國的公共政策?何時制定，如何制定。對於學者、社會評論家、公務人員而言，的確是項重要且爭論的議題。最基本的反對主張認為司法的政策制定是在不民主的程序中產生。因為如憲法設計般，民主的機能是讓人民靠著選舉領導者來決定公共政策，並使其為之負責。然而民選的部門卻往往只會回應具有組織及富裕階層的勢力。所以為了保障政治弱勢及未有組織或貧困的團體之權利與利益，在作成司法決定時，法官將無法避免的調整公共政策，因為彼等將需告訴民選官員何者當為，何者不當為。所以美國憲法上的民主可以定義成公民對公共政策的控制再加上對個人權利的保障。

　　　　　Should judges makes public policy decision for the United States. When they do,and how they do. There are the important and controversial questions among scholars,social commentators and public officials. The primary argument against judicial policymaking is that it produces public policy in an undemocratic manner. As designed in theconstitution, the democracy creates mechanism for the people to determine public policyby electing leaders and holding them accountable for their action. But the electedbranches of government are structured to respond to well-organized and affluent interests.In order to protect the rights and interests of weak political minorities and unorganized orpoor groups. In making judicial decisions, judges will inevitably shape public policybecause they will be telling elected officials what those officials must or cannot do.Thus. the American Constitutional democracy can be defined as citizen control overpublic policy plus the protection of individuals' rights.