司法機關對政治的影響愈來愈明顯，國內政治的爭議也往往訴諸司法裁決。然而政治影響力如此無遠弗屆的法官（有時也包括檢察官）們，卻以「司法獨立」為名不負政治責任。這樣是否符合民主政治的責任原理？本文指出，法律與司法決定程序，並非絕對獨立自主。法官往往享有極大的裁量空間以作成各種重大決定。既然司法決定的本質仍是「選擇」與「判斷」，司法人員仍須對其處理案件的程序與結果，負起一定的政治責任。司法獨立與民主並不當然衝突。在現狀之下，法官至少應該擔任「強化民主制度之基本結構」的功能，有意識地積極保障民主政治的前提條件。司法院大法官以及普通法院，在許多方面的「積極」作風確實在「促進民主」上頗有貢獻，但對於保障弱勢群體之平等公民權方面，仍有不足。

The judiciary’s decisions increasingly made significant implications on Taiwan’ politics; the controversies of realpolitik have also resorted to judicial resolution all the time. Nevertheless, judges (as well as prosecutors, sometimes) are politically unaccountable in the name of “judicial independence” despite its great impact upon politics. Is it consistent with the principle of accountability, which is the integral part of democracy? This article indicates that law and judicial process are not absolutely independent and autonomous. Rather, judges always exercise great discretion in making various kinds of decisions with social importance. As long as the essence of judicial decisionmaking is both “choice” and “judgment”, judicial officials must be politically responsible for their processes and decisions. Judicial independence is not necessarily the opposite of democracy. At least, judges should assume the task of “reinforcement of the infrastructure of democracy”, and therefore consciously guarantee the preconditions of democracy in an active way. Thus, the activism of the Grant Justices and the ordinary courts has indeed promoted Taiwan’s democracy to a great extent; their effort in guaranteeing the equal citizenship of the marginalized groups, which is also one element of the infrastructure of democracy, is nonetheless far from enough.