無法想象特朗普當選總統
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, No Fan of Donald Trump, Critiques Latest Term
無法想象特朗普當選總統
WASHINGTON — Unless they have a book to sell, Supreme Court justices rarely give interviews. Even then, they diligently avoid political topics. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes a different approach.
華盛頓——除非是自己出了書要做宣傳，最高法院的大法官們幾乎從不接受採訪。即便是那種情況下，他們也會竭力避開政治話題。但大法官魯思·巴德爾·金斯伯格(Ruth Bader Ginsburg)採取了一種不同的方式。
These days, she is making no secret of what she thinks of a certain presidential candidate.
近來，她絲毫不掩飾自己對某位總統候選人的看法。
“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
“如果唐納德·特朗普(Donald Trump)當選總統，我無法想象這個地方會變成什麼樣子，無法想象這個國家會是什麼樣，”她說。“對國家來說，可能是四年的時間。對最高法院來說，將是——我甚至不願意去想這個問題。”
It reminded her of something her husband, Martin D. Ginsburg, a prominent tax lawyer who died in 2010, would have said.
這讓她想起了亡夫馬丁·D·金斯伯格(Martin D. Ginsburg)可能會說的話。後者是一名優秀的稅務律師，於2010年去世。
“'Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,'” Ginsburg said, smiling ruefully.
“‘現在是時候移居新西蘭了，’金斯伯格苦笑着說。”
In an interview in her chambers Friday, Ginsburg took stock of a tumultuous term and chastised the Senate for refusing to act on President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.
上週五在她的法官室接受採訪時，金斯伯格盤點了當前這個混亂的法庭年度，並責備參議院拒絕就貝拉克·奧巴馬總統選定的最高法院大法官提名人採取行動。
Her colleagues have said nothing in public about the presidential campaign or about Obama’s stalled nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland to the Supreme Court. But Ginsburg was characteristically forthright, offering an unequivocal endorsement of Garland.
對於這屆總統競選或奧巴馬提名梅里克·B·加蘭德(Merrick B. Garland)爲最高院大法官的行動陷入停滯，金斯伯格的同事不曾有任何公開表態。但她一貫性格直率，明確對加蘭德的提名錶示支持。
“I think he is about as well qualified as any nominee to this court,” she said. “Super bright and very nice, very easy to deal with. And super prepared. He would be a great colleague.”
“我覺得他會與本法院任何一位提名人一樣合格，”她說。“無比聰明，非常和善，容易相處，準備也很充分。他會是一位很不錯的同事。”
Asked if the Senate had an obligation to assess Garland’s qualifications, her answer was immediate.
在被問及參議院是否有義務評估加蘭德的資格時，她立刻做出了回答。
“That’s their job,” she said. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”
“那是他們的職責，”她說。“憲法中沒有任何一條指明總統在任期的最後一年就不再是總統。”
The court has been short-handed since Justice Antonin Scalia died in February, and Ginsburg said it will probably remain that way through most or all of its next term, which starts in October. Even in “the best case,” in which Garland was confirmed in the lame-duck session of Congress after the presidential election on Nov. 8, she said, he will have missed most of the term’s arguments and so could not vote in those cases.
自大法官安東寧·斯卡利亞(Antonin Scalia)於今年2月去世之後，最高法院的職位一直存在空缺。金斯伯格表示，在於10月開啓的下一個法庭年度的大部分、乃至所有時間內，這種情況可能會一直延續下去。她表示，即便是在“最好的情況下”，即加蘭德在11月8日總統競選結束後被跛腳鴨國會確認爲大法官人選，他也會錯過這一年度的大部分辯論，因而不能就那些案件投票。
Ginsburg, 83, said she would not leave her job “as long as I can do it full steam.” But she assessed what is at stake in the presidential election with the precision of an actuary, saying that Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer are no longer young.
現年83歲的金斯伯格表示，“只要我還能全力工作”，就不會退休。不過，她精算師般地掂量着總統大選中的風險，表示大法官安東尼·M·肯尼迪(Anthony M. Kennedy)和史蒂芬·G·佈雷耶(Stephen G. Breyer)也都不年輕了。
“Kennedy is about to turn 80,” she said. “Breyer is going to turn 78.”
“肯尼迪馬上就80歲了，”她說。“佈雷耶很快就78歲了。”
For the time being and under the circumstances, she said, the Supreme Court is doing what it can. She praised Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
她說在眼下這種情況下，最高法院是在盡其所能做好該做的工作。她讚揚了首席大法官小約翰·G·羅伯茨(John G. Roberts Jr.)。
“He had a hard job,” Justice Ginsburg said. “I think he did it quite well.”
“他的工作非常艱鉅，”金斯伯格說。“我覺得他做得相當不錯。”
It was a credit to the eight-member court that it deadlocked only four times, she said, given the ideological divide between its liberal and conservative wings, both with four members.
她表示，考慮到人數各佔一半的自由派和保守派之間的意識形態分歧，目前有八名成員的最高法院在投票上只出現過四次僵局，的確值得讚揚。
One of the 4-4 ties, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, averted what would have been a severe blow to public unions had Scalia participated. “This court couldn’t have done better than it did,” Ginsburg said of the deadlock.
其中一次平局，也就是對“弗里德里希斯訴加州教師工會”案(Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association)進行的投票，假如有斯卡利亞參加，將會對公共部門工會組織造成沉重打擊，而平局避免了那種結果。“法院不可能比當時做得更好，”金斯伯格這樣評價那一次的平局。
When the case was argued in January, the majority seemed prepared to overrule a 1977 precedent that allowed public unions to charge nonmembers fees to pay for collective bargaining.
今年1月就這樁案件展開討論時，最高法院的大多數大法官似乎準備推翻1977年的判例。該判例允許公共部門的工會向非成員收費，以便支付集體談判的費用。
A second deadlock, in United States v. Texas, left in place a nationwide injunction blocking Obama’s plan to spare more than 4 million unauthorized immigrants from deportation and allow them to work. That was unfortunate, Ginsburg said, but it could have been worse.
第二次平局出現在“聯邦政府訴德克薩斯州”案(United States v. Texas)中，結果導致一項阻止奧巴馬移民計劃的全國禁制令。該計劃本可以讓400萬未經授權的移民免於被驅逐出境，允許他們在美工作。金斯伯格說，這個結果令人遺憾，但情況原本還會更糟。
“Think what would have happened had Justice Scalia remained with us,” she said. Instead of a single sentence announcing the tie, she suggested, a five-justice majority would have issued a precedent-setting decision dealing a lasting setback to Obama and the immigrants he had tried to protect.
“想想如果斯卡利亞還在世，會出現什麼情況，”她說。她認爲，那樣的話，不會是宣佈票數拉平的單一判決，而是會有五名大法官以多數票勝出，做出一個先例性的判決，對奧巴馬和他努力保護的移民形成長期的阻礙。
Ginsburg noted that the case was in an early stage and could return to the Supreme Court. “By the time it gets back here, there will be nine justices,” she said.
金斯伯格指出，這個案件處在早期階段，還有可能返回最高法院審理。“等它再回來的時候，就是九名大法官了，”她說。
She also assessed whether the court might have considered a narrow ruling rejecting the suit, brought by Texas and 25 other states, on the ground that they had not suffered the sort of direct and concrete injury that gave them standing to sue. Some of the chief justice’s writings suggested that he might have found the argument attractive.
她也評估了最高法院是否本可以考慮以一個差距比較小的裁決駁回起初由德州及其他25個州提起的訴訟，理由是它們並沒有受到直接而確鑿的損害，於是缺乏起訴的理由。首席大法官寫下的一些文字顯示，他原本可能會覺得這個論點有說服力。
“That would have been hard for me,” Ginsburg said, “because I’ve been less rigid than some of my colleagues on questions of standing. There was a good argument to be made, but I would not have bought that argument because of the damage it could do” in other cases.
“如果是那樣，會難以說服我，”金斯伯格說，“因爲在質疑理由方面我不像一些同事那麼嚴格。那會是個不錯的論點，但我不會把它提出來，因爲可能會”對其他案件“造成損害”。
The big cases the court did decide, on abortion and affirmative action, were triumphs, Ginsburg said. Both turned on Kennedy’s vote. “I think he comes out as the great hero of this term,” Ginsburg said.
金斯伯格稱，最高法院在墮胎和平權措施方面的大案件做出的裁決屬於巨大的勝利。兩項都有賴於肯尼迪的投票。“我覺得他成爲了這個法庭年度的大英雄，”金斯伯格說。
Asked if there were cases she would like to see the court overturn before she leaves it, she named one.
在被問到是否有她希望能在自己退休之前推翻的案例時，她提到了一個。
“It won’t happen,” she said. “It would be an impossible dream. But I’d love to see Citizens United overruled.”
“不會發生，”她說。“那將是一個不可能實現的夢。不過我的確想看到“聯合公民”案(Citizens United)的裁決被推翻。”
She mulled whether the court could revisit its 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act. She said she did not see how that could be done.
她仔細考慮了法院是否會重新審覈2013年就“謝爾比縣訴霍爾德”案(Shelby County v. Holder)做出的判決。該判決實際上廢除了《選舉權法》(Voting Rights Act)的一個關鍵部分。她表示，看不出還能就這個案件做些什麼。
The court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing an individual right to own guns, may be another matter, she said.
最高法院2008年就“哥倫比亞區特區訴赫勒”案(District of Columbia v. Heller)做出的裁決確立了個人持有槍支的權利。金斯伯格稱，這樁案子是另一回事。
“I thought Heller was a very bad decision,” she said, adding that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.
“我認爲赫勒案是個非常糟糕的裁決，”金斯伯格說。她還表示，每次最高法院想對槍支管制法律提出挑戰，都有可能出現重新考慮該案的機會。
Should Garland or another Democratic appointee join the court, Ginsburg will find herself in a new position, and the thought seemed to please her.
如果加蘭德或其他民主黨提名人加入最高法院大法官的行列，金斯伯格將會處在一個新的環境中，想到這一點，她似乎頗爲開心。
“It means that I’ll be among five more often than among four,” she said.
“這意味着我會更經常處在五票的行列裏，而非四票，”她說。
