【世事關心】一個更強大的最高法院 對美國有利還是有害?

Title: Will a more Powerful Supreme Court Help or Hurt American Purpose?

【新唐人2019年01月29日訊】【世事關心】一個更強大的最高法院 對美國有利還是有害?

最高法院的一舉一動直接影響到我們每一個人的生活,從二戰結束以來,最高院的判決改變了州立法機構劃分國會選區的辦法,剝奪了胎兒的法律保護,禁止學童在課前的禱告。

建國者們在憲法頭條裡就確立了三權分立的原則,因為國會是根據憲法第一條成立的,有些法律學者就因此認為國會最重要。此外憲法的第二條和第三條還規定了總統和最高院的職權,在這一期裡我們將探討最高法院如何變得如此重要。

標題: 一個更強大的最高法院對美國有利還是有害?

Title: Will a more Powerful Supreme Court Help or Hurt American Purpose?

===================================================

川普總統或許會提名上任以來第三位最高法院大法官。民主黨人會如何面對自由派勢力在高院示威?

President Donald Trump will likely nominate a third Supreme Court justice. How will Democrats react to the total loss of liberal dominance on the Supreme Court?

Thomas B. Teston(《民主檔的靈魂》作者):「我認為,自由黨人和民主黨人,有必要重新與美國人民建立聯繫,並利用人民的選舉權力推進改革議程。」

Thomas:“  I think that it behooves the liberals and the Democrats to renew their ties to the American people and to use the elective power of the people as a way to advance the reform agenda.”

國家在意識形態上處於分裂狀態。擁槍權的捍衛者如何面對校園槍擊事件的受害人家屬?

The nation is deeply divided. How did the man whose case set the precedent for Second Amendment rights face school shooting victims’ families?

Dick He(原告/華盛頓特區對海勒最高法院案件):「幾年後Sandy Hook發生了大屠殺,我是否要負間接責任呢?」

Dick Heller: “I’d won this case and a couple of years later you have the Sandy Hook massacre. And I had to go have a talk with the man in the mirror and say was this your fault? ”

在很長一段時間裏,最高法院只是一個陪襯。它是如何變得越來越重要,以至於成為國家政治體系中的一個支配力量的呢?

For most of American history the Supreme Court was an afterthought. How did the Supreme Court become supreme and come to dominate the American political system?

Ilya Shapiro(卡托研究所Robert A. Levy憲法研究中心主任):「問題是,幾十年來華盛頓的權力、聯邦的權力一直在增長,這就是為什麼最高法院的重要性與日俱增。」

Ilya:“ And the problem is over the decades, power in Washington, federal power, has grown. And that’s why the importance of the Supreme Court has grown. ”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):大家好,我是《世事關心》的主持人蕭茗。這一期我們關注最高法院。最高法院的一舉一動直接影響到我們每一個人的生活。從二戰結束以來,最高法院的判決改變了州立法機構劃分國會選區的辦法,剝奪了胎兒的法律保護,禁止了學童在課前的禱告。建國者們在憲法頭三條裡就確定了三權分立的原則。因為國會是根據憲法第一條成立的,有些法律學者就因此認為國會最重要。此外,憲法的第二條和第三條還規定了總統和最高法院的職權。在這一期《世事關心》裡,我們將探討最高法院為何變得如此重要,以及一個將由保守派主導的高院會如何影響國家的政治。參與最高法院案件訴訟的人士會介紹他們的經歷。

Welcome to《Zooming In》,I am Simone Gao. In this edition we look at the Supreme Court. All Americans are affected by decisions made by the Supreme Court. Since the end of World War II, these rulings have changed how state legislatures draw congressional districts, stripped legal protections from unborn children, and stopped school children from praying before classes begin. The Founding Fathers created each of the three branches of the federal government in the first three articles of the Constitution. Because the legislative branch was created in Article One, legal scholars agree that Congress is to have primacy in the government. Article Two is the executive branch, and Article Three is the judicial branch, which includes the Supreme Court. In this edition of《Zooming In》,We examine how this third branch of government became so powerful and what it means to national politics when a liberal Court transitions into a conservative court. We go behind-the-scenes with participants who share their experiences in Supreme Court cases.

第一部份:兩個真實的故事

PART 1: Two “People”Stories

憲法第二修正案禁止國會限制擁槍權。但是許多人包括本期嘉賓迪克·海勒,卻在這件事上遇到了困難。海勒先生在90年代曾任高院院警,每天下班後,他必須交還配槍,在沒武器的情況下,騎車穿過治安不好的居民區回家。

Narration: The Second Amendment states that Congress shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. But for Dick Heller and millions of Americans who wanted to own a gun, it was a different story. Mr. Heller was a special police officer guarding the Supreme Court back in the ‘90s. Every day at the end of his shift, he would turn in his pistol at the armory and ride his bike home through increasingly dangerous neighborhoods–unarmed.

Dick Heller(迪克·海勒/原告/華盛頓特區對海勒最高法院案件):「法官們注意到,用政府發行的槍枝保護他們的其中一個人是訴訟當事人。我決定走司法維權的路,我是靈機一動想出了這個辦法。最高法院需要我用槍來保護他們,但是我卻不能擁有一支槍來保護自己。」

Dick Heller:“ It did not go unnoticed by the justices that one of the people guarding them with a government-issued firearm was the litigant. And when I thought about it, a light bulb came on one day. And it occurred to me they give me a gun, but I can’t have a gun. I can protect them, but I cannot protect myself.”

海勒向DC政府申請一年期的擁槍執照,他要買手槍來看家護院。但是他的申請被駁回了。海勒於是起訴DC政府侵犯了他的憲法權利。費時20年,他的官司一路打到最高法院。在2008年12月26日,最高法院以5-4判海勒勝訴。Antonin Scalia大法官在當年6月26日作為主筆撰寫了判詞。

Heller applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. He then sued the District of Columbia for violating the Second Amendment. During the next 20 years, he took his case all the way up to the Supreme Court.

On December 26, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Heller’s rights to bear arms. On June 26 that year, Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority.

Antonin Scalia(大法官):「有些人認為憲法《第二修正案》過時了。我們雖然有最強大的軍隊、訓練有素的警隊,但是社會上的涉槍犯罪依然很嚴重。治安狀況的好壞可以討論,但是法院無權宣布憲法第二修正案作廢。」

「Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.」

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):許多人為這一刻已經等了很久了。海勒告訴我說,這是高院聽證會前最令人難忘的瞬間。

A large portion of the American public had waited decades for this moment. Heller told me his most memorable moment before the high court hearing.

Dick Heller(迪克·海勒/原告/華盛頓特區對海勒最高法院案件):「在高院聽證會的前夜,發生了一件趣事。當時是3月,天氣很冷,我因為住的近,就在傍晚騎上車去高院。我發現有超過50人睡在附近的人行道上。我就問他們:怎麼啦?怎麼大家都在這兒睡?真是件怪事。當時他們沒認出我來,我和在場的許多人都聊了聊。我跟他們講:晚上會冷,太陽要下山了,我買了400劑止咳糖漿,我跑回去從隊首開始,給每人分發。當時太陽已經落山了,我和他們講,別被凍咳嗽了。在場的人紛紛感謝我的善行,但是還是沒認出我。第二天,我穿上大衣,繫上領帶,回到現場和人們一一握手,他們才認出我來,人人都感到驚訝,他們興奮的不得了,因為我來到他們中間,我們都是來參加聽證會的,我也是普通人。」

Dick Heller: “the story that I really like to tell is “the people” story because the night before the hearing, it was very cold in March, and I went to—I only lived a block away, so I pulled up on my bicycle and said, “Hey, y’all, what’s happening here? Why is everybody sleeping on the sidewalk?” An aw-shucks kind of thing. And nobody knew. Nobody recognized me. And it was cold, so I talked to a lot of people, and there was over 50 people sleeping on the sidewalk, so I said, “It’s getting cold, the sun’s going down.” I went to the drug store and bought two big 200-piece cough drop bags. I bought 400 cough drops, and then I went back and started at the head of the line, the sun had gone down by now, and gave everybody a handful of cough drops. And I said, “Here, you’re going to need these.” And everybody was saying, man, that dude’s nice. Who was that? You know, nobody. So the next morning I’m in a coat and tie, and I go down the line and shake everybody’s hands and they suddenly recognize me. Oh, no. Oh, no, you didn’t. Oh, yes, I did. And they got a kick out of that because I was out there meeting the people because we were all kind of going in together to hear this case. I was just a normal people.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「他們進不去高院,對嗎?他們只能在外面等?」

“ Right. They’re not allowed in the Supreme Court, right? They’re outside waiting?”

Dick Heller(迪克·海勒/原告/華盛頓特區對海勒最高法院案件):「聽證的地方只能容納125人。他們為了能進去就早早的在外面安營紮寨,我覺得。」

Dick Heller: “They had to wait outside because so many people wanted to get in that they were sleeping on the sidewalk to be the first to enter the Court. The Court takes about 125, I think.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「 現場去了多少人?」

“ How many of them were there?”

Dick Heller(迪克·海勒/原告/華盛頓特區對海勒最高法院案件):「幾百人。聽證會場滿員之後,場外等待的民眾就輪流進場旁聽。然後每10分鐘允許20人輪流入場站著旁聽。」

Dick Heller: Hundreds. And they were swapping them in after the courtroom packed, then they would swap standing-room only 20 at a time for about 10 minutes.

1年以後,這件勝訴案的影響形成了一個浪潮。

A year after he won his case, Dick Heller realized he had started a tidal wave.

Dick Heller(迪克·海勒/原告/華盛頓特區對海勒最高法院案件):「第二修正案基金會的Alan Gottlieb發表了聲明,應該是他,他說我的案子勝訴了。在那之後的一年裡,有超過75個針對地方槍支管制措施的訴訟案。我當時坐在第一排,我感到難以置信,我只知道我自己的案子,我沒有想到這類抗議會上升到75宗。在那之後又過了一兩年,訴訟案的數量達到了300宗。我對自己說:我們掀起了維權的浪潮。這個例子顯示了最高法院的權力,一個正確解釋憲法的高院會影響下面那些不願遵守憲法,尤其是反對第二修正案的巡迴法院、市政府、和州政府。在一個法治國家裡裡,最高法院就具有這樣的權力。」

Dick Heller:“And I went up to New York to do a speech. And there were a number of people up there who were more versed in the legal activity than I was. And it was Second Amendment Foundation, Alan Gottlieb, I think, made the statement. It should’ve been him. He said since Dick Heller case was heard and decided, he said there have been over 75 additional gun cases one year later that have hit the courts challenging the local restrictions. I’m sitting on the front row, and my mouth falls open because it was just—all I knew was me and my little bubble, right, in a case here and a case there and then 75. And then a couple of years later, it was announced that there were over 300. I’m going, to myself, “Oh my gosh, we have started a tidal wave.” So what you can see is the power of the Supreme Court to properly interpret the Constitution has created significant challenges to the number of circuit courts and cities and states that just absolutely detest our Constitution and the Second Amendment most of all. So that’s the power they have because we live by laws.”

四年後,海勒碰上了另一個故事

Four years later, Heller got hit by another story.

2012年12月14日,在康涅狄格州的Newtown, 20歲的Adam Lanza開槍打死了20個6-7歲的學童,以及6名校方工作人員。來學校前,他還在家中打死了自己的母親。當警方趕到現場的時候,Lanza開槍自殺。

On December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children between six and seven years old, as well as six adult staff members. Before driving to the school, he shot and killed his mother at their Newtown home. As first responders arrived at the school, Lanza committed suicide by shooting himself in the head.

Dick Heller(迪克·海勒/原告/華盛頓特區對海勒最高法院案件):「我非常難過,我被深深的觸動了,我打贏了自己的官司,幾年後Sandy Hook發生了大屠殺,我是否要負間接責任呢?我想明白了,這裡沒有我的錯。我們的訴求,以及大法官Scalia的判決,是為了增強人們自衛的能力。家長們和Sandy Hook的校董們應該知道,學校必須有保安,或者有槍來防衛,他們為了省錢而不作為,沒想到會有後果。如果他們仔細想想從前發生的校園槍擊事件,就會意識到應該採取防範措施。我打贏了自己的官司,在法律上確認了他們擁槍自衛的權利,只是校方和家長沒有實行,所以有槍才有安全。」

Dick Heller: “Don’t get me crying now. This really touches my heart. But in the case of Sandy Hook, I mean, I’d won this case and a couple of years later you have the Sandy Hook massacre. And I had to go have a talk with the man in the mirror and say was this your fault? And I finally figured out, no, it wasn’t my fault. What we did, and the Scalia decision, was give everyone the option to protect themselves. And the parents and the school board in Sandy Hook had no reason to believe that they would ever need security or armed people on their elementary school campus. So they made a financial decision by making no decision, not knowing about it. Had they ever thought through the previous school shootings, they might have said, gee, maybe we ought to protect our school. And after the Heller decision, they had the right, the specific enumerated, articulated right to do that. And they chose not to. So safety is a choice.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「校園槍擊事件發生後,許多受害學生家長支持更嚴格的槍支管控措施。他們認為控槍能防止悲劇重演。您有什麼看法?」

“ After the school shooting, many victims’ family members supported tighter gun control restrictions over Second Amendment rights. They saw it as a solution to prevent this tragedy from happening again. What would you say to them?  ”

Dick Heller(迪克·海勒/原告/華盛頓特區對海勒最高法院案件):「奧巴馬總統講過,我們要有比犯罪分子更強的武力。校園隨時都有可能被武裝犯罪分子侵入,我們不能赤手空拳。過去發生的多起校園和夜總會槍擊事件,都是因為發案場所禁止人們帶槍。在奧蘭多夜總會槍擊一案中,帶了槍的顧客都被拒之門外,因為佛州法律禁止人們攜槍進入任何賣酒的場所。聯邦調查局有一張年度犯罪數據統計表,其數據顯示,在宏觀上,不管是全國範圍內,還是地區範圍內的統計數據都顯示,擁槍的人數與犯罪率成反比。這是常識。」

Dick Heller: “Interesting in that President Obama said when they bring a knife, we bring a gun. Well, when someone brings a gun and you are in high school and you have a knife or a baseball bat or nothing, you have a right to be stupid. Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, the Parkland high school, and the Orlando nightclub shootings, in all those cases, they were, of course, all gun-free zones. And why would a criminal, a killer, want to have a bad day at the office and face gunfire? So they’re going to pick gun-free zones. The Orlando nightclub case, if there was anyone that was concealed carry, they were outside in the parking lot because they were not allowed inside under Florida law because you cannot conceal carry in Florida in an alcohol-serving establishment. So wherever–if you look at the FBI statistics, they have a table in their crime statistics annually called Table 8, and what you can do is you can see, as gun ownership goes up, crime goes down on a macro level, a national level, or a municipality county-city level, that’s just the dynamics of humans. ”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「您反對背景審查嗎?」

“ Are you against background checks? ”

Dick Heller(迪克·海勒/原告/華盛頓特區對海勒最高法院案件):「背景審查只會給守法公民購槍帶來不便,守法公民才接受背景審查,犯罪分子哪會接受背景審查?他們不去槍店買槍,犯罪分子確實有槍,他們的槍從哪裡來?多種渠道。所以背景審查限制不了犯罪分子,只是給購槍者帶來一點不便。要讓背景審查真的起作用,槍店應該在購槍者被查出有問題的那一刻,馬上把人扣住,等候警方派人處理,如果是那樣也許行。」

Dick Heller: “All it does is slow people down and puts a burden on the law-abiding citizens. We submit to background checks because we’re law-abiding. What criminal wants a background check? They don’t go into a gun store to buy a gun. Do they have guns? Yes. Where do they come from? My, my. All over the place. So a background check just doesn’t do much. All it does is slows people down a little bit. Now, what you really should have is, when they go for the background check in the gun store and they fail, then a net should drop down and hold them until the police come. Now that’s a pretty good system maybe. ”

最高法院的權力是否超出了憲法規定的範圍?

Coming up, Has the Supreme Court grown beyond what the framers had intended?

第二部分:在美國政治體制中,最高法院為何至高無上?

Part 2: How Did the Supreme Court Become Supreme in America’s Political System?

聯邦政府通常被描述為政府三個平等部門之間的一個復雜的制衡系統。另一種看待它的方式,是把聯邦政府看作由四個審議機構組成的金字塔。最底層是眾議院,是擁有435名成員的最強大的機構。眾議院是最分散的機構,但在彈劾、戰爭、稅收和開支問題上,眾議院有主動權。

The federal government is often described as a complex system of checks and balances among three co-equal branches of government. Another way of looking at it is to see the federal government as four deliberative bodies stacked as a pyramid. At the bottom is the House of Representatives. It is the most powerful body with 435 members. It is the most diffuse body, but its power is that in matters of impeachment, war, taxes and spending, the House has the initiative.

第二個組成部分是擁有100名成員的參議院。它的唯一權力是能夠拒絕眾議院通過的法案和議案、批準總統任命以及條約。

The second body is the Senate with 100 members. Its sole power is the ability to say no to bills and motions passed by the House and to approve presidential appointments and treaties.

法官的人數沒有固定的數目,但根據傳統,法庭上有九名法官。法院並沒有主動執行權,只有有人請求法院行動時,它才能行動。但是,法院有權拒絕總統、國會和各州采取的任何行動。位於金字塔頂端的是總統,他擁有通過否決權、對國會說「不」的主動權和權力。

There is no fixed number of justices, but by tradition there have been nine justices on the court. The framers gave the court no initiative authority. It can only act if someone petitions it to act. However, the court has the power to say no to any action taken by the president, the Congress, and the states. At the top of the pyramid is the president, who has both the initiative and the power to say no to Congress through his veto.

這種模式在20世紀50年代和60年代被打破了,因為激進的法官們開始自己制定新的法律。這種奪取主動權的所謂創新,其實擾亂了制憲者所創造的憲法制度,因為制憲者根本沒有預料到需要考慮權力的制衡。

This model became broken in the   took it upon themselves to create new laws on their own. This seizure of initiative is the innovation that disrupted the constitutional system created by the framers because there is virtually no check for a power the framers never anticipated.

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):Ilya Shapiro是卡托研究所Robert A. Levy 憲法研究中心主任。我和他談論了最高法院角色的變化問題。

Ilya Shapiro is the director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute. I spoke with him about the changing role of the Supreme Court.

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「Mr. Shapiro, 請問最高法院的初衷是什麼?它今天的作用是否已經超越了制憲者的初衷?」

“ Mr. Shapiro, what was the original purpose of the Supreme Court and has its role today grown beyond what the framers intended?”

Ilya Shapiro(卡托研究所憲法研究中心主任):「一般說來,最高法院或司法機構應該檢查其它部門。因此,如果國會通過了一項超出其憲法權限的法律,那麼最高法院或下級聯邦法院應該予以否決。如果總統或某個執行機構做了超出其法定權限的事情,法院理應介入。問題是,幾十年來,華盛頓的權力,聯邦的權力,一直在增長,這就是爲什麼最高法院的重要性與日俱增。現在我們已經基本習慣了每年六月任期結束時,最高法院會對全國最重要的三四個或六個政治問題作出裁決。而你想在過去的十年裏,從醫療保健、移民、種族偏見、墮胎、政治選區劃分不公、競選資金、投票權,凡是你能想到的大的政治爭端最高法院都有捲入。這並不是因爲最高法院試圖介入,試圖獲得更高的知名度或更多的權力,這只是華盛頓權力集中的一個結果。在一個大而多元的國家,人們會有不同的意見,但最終都得依靠最高法院來解決。我認爲,最終減少政治兩極化,或者說減少我們過去十年中所經歷的危機的方法,是將權力下放到各州和地方政府手中。如果最高法院不需要處理這些聯邦權力或行政權力的重大問題時,它就不會被如此受爭議。我認爲這將是一件好事。其實不僅僅是最高法院,國會也是如此,它也是執行機構。隨著權力在華盛頓的集中,所有這些機構都開始行使更大的職權。」

Ilya Shapiro:“ Well, the Supreme Court or the judiciary in general is supposed to check the other branches. So if Congress passes a law that goes beyond its Constitutional authority, the Supreme Court or lower federal courts are supposed to strike it down. If the president or an executive agency does something that’s beyond their statutory authority, the courts are supposed to step in. And the problem is over the decades, power in Washington, federal power, has grown. And that’s why the importance of the Supreme Court has grown. And so now we have sort of gotten used to the idea that every June at the end of term, the Supreme Court rules on three or four or half a dozen of the most important political issues in the country. And you think about it in the last decade, everything from health care, immigration, racial preferences, abortion, political gerrymandering, campaign finance, voting rights, you name it, a big political controversy, the Supreme Court is involved. And it’s not because the Supreme Court is trying to get involved and trying to earn a higher profile or gain more power. It’s just a function of a system that has concentrated power in Washington. And in a large and diverse country, you’re going to have differences in opinion that ultimately end up resolved by the Supreme Court. I think, ultimately, the way to reduce political polarization, or the tension, the toxicity that we’re living the last decade, is to push power back down to the states and the localities. If the Supreme Court doesn’t have to decide these major issues of federal power or executive authority or what have you, then it won’t be as talked about. I think that would be a good thing. But it’s not just the Supreme Court. It’s also Congress. It’s also executive agencies. As power has centralized in Washington, all of these institutions start playing a larger role. ”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「你剛才提到這些政府部門不應該有這麼大的權力。但是他們的權力如何被削減呢?」

“ You just mentioned that these branches of government shouldn’t have so much power. But how can their powers be cut back? ”

Ilya Shapiro(卡托研究所憲法研究中心主任):「我們花了幾十年走到今天這一步,也許我們也同樣需要幾十年才能回到過去。我認爲從30年代,最高法院開始批準,在不修改憲法的前提下聯邦可以行使超越憲法的權力,這就是華盛頓權力增長的起源。但不僅僅是這樣,還因為國會放棄它的權力或者把它的權力委託給行政部門。國會議員可以這樣說,我投票支持這項偉大的法律,我將讓官員們解決細節問題。如果人們不喜歡這些細節,他們可以責怪該機構,他們不應該責怪我,我通過了這項偉大的法律。但是,是官員、是公務員、是官僚機構他們在做壞事。當然,人們不能遊說政府機構或官僚機構,人們只能起訴他們。這就是爲什麼所有這些關於政策觀點或價值觀衝突的重大爭議最終都在法庭上解決,而不是由國會來決定。在最高法院之外而不是在國會之外進行的抗議活動是有些不尋常和不健康的,因爲所有這些重大的政策立場或價值觀衝突都應該由我們選出的代表來決定,而不應該推到行政機構,最終由法院來解決。」

Ilya Shapiro: “Well, just like it’s taken decades to get to where we are, it will take decades to get back. I think the Supreme Court, starting in the ‘30s, started approving uses of federal power that go beyond Constitutional authority without amending the Constitution. And that’s really the genesis of the growth of power here in Washington. But it’s not just that. It’s also Congress abdicating its authority or delegating its power to the executive branch. That way congressmen can say, I voted for this great law and I’ll just have the bureaucrats sort out the details. And if people don’t like the details, they can blame the agency. They shouldn’t blame me, I passed this great law. But it’s the bureaucrats, it’s the civil servants, it’s the agencies that are doing the bad things. And, of course, people can’t lobby the agencies or the bureaucrats.

They can only sue them. And that’s why all of these major disputes over clashes of policy views or values end up in the courts rather than being decided in the halls of Congress. There’s something unusual and unhealthy about protests going on outside the Supreme Court rather than outside of Congress because all of these major clashes of policy positions or values should be decided by our elected representatives, not pushed to the executive agencies and ultimate resolved in court.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):同樣的問題,我也問了民主黨人。Thomas B. Reston一輩子都在政治領域工作,在全國層面為八次總統選舉工作過,在地方和州裡選舉經歷更多。他兩次被選為弗吉尼亞州民主黨秘書長。他在吉米·卡特總統任內被指派做外交工作,是外交事務的助理國務卿。他是民權的擁護者,寫作過《一名民主黨人的靈魂》一書,聽聽他怎麼說。

I also asked the Democratic side the same questions. Thomas B. Reston has spent a lifetime in politics, working in eight presidential campaigns at the national level and in countless local and statewide efforts. He was twice elected Secretary of the Democratic Party of Virginia. Reston was a political appointee in the Foreign Service under President Jimmy Carter, serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. He is a civil rights advocate and author of 《Soul of a Democrat》. Here is my discussion with him.

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「你是否認為最高法院的角色已經超越了國父們的意圖?」

“ Do you think the role of the Supreme Court has gone beyond what the framers had intended?”

Thomas B. Reston(《民主黨的靈魂》作者):「我不這麼認為。其實最高法院的角色或多或少的正在回歸國父們想要的那樣,或是,首席大法官John Marsahll想要的那樣。他曾經是偉大的保守派,建立了最高法院司法審查制度,這個制度在國會之上,這樣最高法院如果發現有些法律不符合憲法,儘管是國會已經通過了的,也可以廢除。所以最高法院真的正在回歸最早的功能,就是約束國會的功能。我認為最高法院一直在發揮美國政府中的保守派的角色。還有現在最高法院裡保守派是多數,這已經是事實,我認為最高法院會回到它的本質角色上。」

Thomas Reston:“ No, I don’t think so. In fact, I think, as a practical matter, the role of the Supreme Court is returning more or less to what the framers wanted, or certainly Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall, who was the great conservative who established the principle of judicial review, over the actions of Congress so that the Supreme Court could knock out legislation that had been written and passed by the Congress if the Supreme Court found the legislation to be unconstitutional. So I think really the Supreme Court is returning to its earliest days as this staunch, as the staunch wall against an unbridled Congress. I think that it has always functioned as the great conservative part of the American government. And I think with the new conservative majority on the court, which has now been established, I think that court will return to its essential role.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「下一節還有更多Thomas Reston的採訪。」

“ We will have more with Thomas Reston in our next segment. ”

川普有可能在他擔任總統期間提名第三位最高法院法官,民主黨人會如何反應?

Coming up, it is possible that president Trump could appoint another justice during his presidency. If that happens, how will Democrats react?

第三部分:失去了最高法院,民主黨人有何反應?

Part 3: How Will Democrats React to the Loss of a Liberal Supreme Court?

繼尼爾·戈索和布雷特·卡瓦諾之後,川普總統有可能在他擔任總統期間提名第三位最高法院法官。

After Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, it is possible for President Donald Trump to nominate a third Supreme Court justice during his presidency.

85歲的大法官魯思·巴德·金斯伯格目前正從肺癌手術中恢復。在她25年的職業生涯中,這是她第一次缺席1月7日的口頭辯論。她通過閱讀法律摘要和口頭辯論的筆錄,參與了對正在辯論的兩個案件的裁決。

The 85-year-old Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is currently recovering from lung cancer surgery. She was absent from oral argument on January 7th for the first time in her 25-year career on the court.  She participated in deciding the two cases being argued by reading legal briefs and transcripts of the oral arguments.

金斯伯格是法院自由派的領袖。她在法律生涯中花了相當大的一部分時間,倡導促進性別平等和婦女權利,並在最高法院的辯論中多次獲勝。她曾在美國公民自由聯盟(American Civil Liberties Union)擔任志願律師,並於20世紀70年代成為其董事會成員和總顧問之一。

Ginsburg is the leader of the court’s liberal faction. She spent a considerable part of her legal career as an advocate for the advancement of gender equality and women’s rights, winning multiple victories arguing before the Supreme Court. She advocated as a volunteer lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union and was a member of its board of directors and one of its general counsels in the 1970s.

在奧巴馬擔任總統期間,一些帶有個新觀念的律師和積極分子呼籲金斯伯格退休,以便奧巴馬能夠任命一位志同道合的繼任者,尤其是在民主黨控制美國參議院的時候,金斯伯格拒絕了這些請求。

During Barack Obama’s presidency, some progressive lawyers and activists called for Ginsburg to retire so that Obama would be able to appoint a like-minded successor, particularly while the Democratic Party held control of the U.S. Senate. Ginsburg rejected these pleas.

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):如果川普總統能夠任命另一位保守的最高法院法官,這將如何影響國家政治?下面是我和托馬斯·萊斯頓的討論。

If President Trump will be able to appoint another conservative Supreme Court justice, how will that affect national politics? Here is the rest of my discussion with Thomas Reston.

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「自20世紀50年代以來,最高法院一直是自由黨占多數。現在,隨著戈薩特法官和卡瓦諾法官的確認當選,這種情況正在改變。如今,大法官金斯伯格可能接替成為新一任大法官,民主黨將失去一個可靠的左傾最高法院。他們將如何反應?」

“Ever since the 1950s, the Supreme Court has had a liberal majority. Now with the confirmation of Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh, that situation is changing. Now, with the possible replacement of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Democratic Party will lose a reliable left-leaning Supreme Court. How will they react?”

Thomas B. Reston(《民主黨的靈魂》作者):「我不認為最高法院現在是左翼的最高法院。但我認為你是對的,在1950年代、1960年代和1970年代的一段時間裡,最高法院的多數成員非常同情美國社會的改革力量,並以一種非常有力的方式行使法院的權力,協助美國的改革力量。我認為,這個國家的自由黨已經習慣於在他們的頭腦中,認為法院是一個可靠的盟友,他們認為,即使人民不同意他們的意見,或國會中的人民代表不同意他們,只要人民代表能簡單地去支持他們,就能實現他們的目標,他們認為,即使人民不同意他們的意見,或者國會中的人民代表不同意他們的意見,他們也可以做到這一點,在法庭上贏得法律訴訟。我認為現在最高法院變得更加保守,而且已經保守了一段時間,但現在它將變得非常保守,現在關於誰在最高法院擁有權力不會有太多的歧義。我認為,自由黨人和民主黨人有必要重新與美國人民建立聯系,並利用人民的選舉權力推進改革議程。」

Thomas Reston:“ I don’t regard the Supreme Court now as a left-wing Supreme Court. But I think that you are correct that for a period during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, there was a majority on the Supreme Court which was very sympathetic to the forces of reform in American society and exercised the power of the court in a very robust way to assist the forces of reform in America. And I think that liberals in this country sort of got used to thinking in their own minds that the court was a reliable ally and that sometimes liberals might be able to get—that they thought they might be able to get their way even if the people didn’t agree with them or the representatives of the people in Congress didn’t agree with them if they could simply go to the courts and win legal cases in the court which would get them the same result. I think now that the Supreme Court is getting much more conservative, and I think the Supreme Court has been reliably conservative for some time, but now it will become extremely conservative, and there won’t be much ambiguity about who has the power on the court now. I think that it behooves the liberals and the Democrats to renew their ties to the American people and to use the elective power of the people as a way to advance the reform agenda.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「所以,您認為這實際上是一個機會,讓民主黨尋找它的初心,並再次與美國人民聯系起來?」

“ So you think this is actually an opportunity for the Democratic Party to search for its soul, if you will, and be connected with the American people again?”

Thomas B. Reston(《民主黨的靈魂》作者):「我認為是這樣的。這並不是說我反對利用法院來推動或利用法律來幫助這個社會中的人們。我曾幾次擔任墨西哥裔美國法律辯護基金(MALDEF)的董事會主席。他們在維護拉美裔的權利,總部設在洛杉磯。因此,我為民權領袖們在法庭上所做的工作感到自豪。但我確實認為,作為一個政治問題,民主黨需要——這是民主黨重新與美國人民建立密切聯系的機會。這就是我在我的書中所說的重新拾回初心的一部分,就像民主黨重新認識自己的初心一樣。」

Thomas Reston:“ I do indeed. I do indeed. It’s not that I am opposed to using the courts for advancing or certainly using the law to help people in this society. I have been the chairman of the board of the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, MALDEF, a couple of times. And they stand up for the rights of Latinos here in the United States. It’s headquartered in Los Angeles. So I am proud that the work that civil rights leaders do in our courts. But I do think, as a political matter, the Democratic Party needs–this is an opportunity for the Democratic Party to renew its very close ties deep into the American people. And that is part of what I mean in my book when I’m talking about regaining the soul, as the Democratic Party regaining its own soul.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「您認為民主黨的建立會做到這一點嗎?」

“ Do you think the establishment of the Democratic Party will do that?”

Thomas B. Reston(《民主黨的靈魂》作者):「嗯,我認為他們需要這樣做,因為民主黨的支持率不再上升了。現實情況是,兩黨派在這個國家政治上是平分秋色的。在上次選舉中,雖然民主黨取得了重大勝利,但並不是那種『上帝之手』式的選舉才把保守黨徹底擊敗。我認為這次選舉表明美國人民仍然有很深的分歧。民主黨需要做的,不是僅僅試圖動員更多的支持者,而是尋找方法,超越現有的基礎。事實上,進入共和黨,進入美國人民的大群體,因為這些人現在投票給共和黨,他們曾經是可靠的民主黨選民。畢竟,這個國家的白人工人階級,是羅斯福新政聯盟的核心。」

Thomas Reston: “Well, I think they’re going to need to because the numbers don’t add up for the Democrats anymore. The reality is that the country is sort of evenly divided politically. And the last election, while the Democrats registered major gains, it was not the sort of ‘hand of God’type of election that just swept the conservatives out all across the board. I think the election revealed that the American people are still deeply divided. And what the Democratic Party needs to do, instead of just trying to mobilize more of its current supporters, it needs to look for ways to move beyond its current base and back into the middle and back, in fact, into the Republican—into large groups of the American people who are now voting Republican who at one time were reliable Democratic voters. The white working class in this country, after all, is the heart of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition.“

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):美國最高法院的發展已經超過了國父們提出的計劃,但和其它部門一樣,建造這座建築的不是藍圖,而是人民。最高法院這座雄偉大廈提醒著人們法院的權力,但仍然是大廈背後的人——大法官、當事人、律師以及美國人民決定了法院的未來。感謝您收看這一集關於最高法院的節目。如果您喜歡我們的節目,請推廣給更多的人。您也可以加入我們Facebook頁面上的群聊,並訂閱我們的YouTube頻道《Zooming In with Simone Gao》。我們下次再見。

The Supreme Court has outgrown the plan set forth by the Founding Fathers, but like every other institution, it is not the blueprint that does the building; it is the people. The imposing edifice of the Supreme Court is a magnificent reminder of the court’s power, but it is still the people behind the edifice–the justices, the clients, and the attorneys, as well as the American people–who decide the court’s future. Thank you for joining us for this episode on the Supreme Court. If you liked it, please share. You can also join the conversation on our Facebook page and subscribe to our YouTube channel 《Zooming In with Simone Gao》. Goodbye until next time.

End

==========================================

Producer:Simone Gao

Writer:Joel Slaughter, Simone Gao

Editors:Julian Kuo, Bonnie Yu, Frank Lin, Bin Tang,  York Du

Narrator: Rich Crankshaw

Translation:Greg Yang,  Bin Tang, Juan Li

Transcription: Jess Beatty

Cameraman: York Du

Special Effects:Harrison Sun

Assistant producer: Bin Tang,  Merry Jiang

Feedback:ssgx@ntdtv.com

Host accessories are sponsored by Yun Boutique

New Tang Dynasty Television

Zooming In

January, 2019

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVWMVBg1RPrDlakdmbyTKBA

https://www.facebook.com/ZoomingInShow/

===================================

相關文章
評論