評論
打印
The Supreme Court
最高法院
Drafting laws, vows and maps
起草法案，鄭重起誓，劃分選區
Obamacare, gay marriage and race: the justices' term is heating up
奧巴馬醫改，同性婚姻，種族問題：最高法院忙得團團轉
TWO years ago Obamacare survived a constitutional assault by the narrowest of margins, but its opponents have not given up. On November 7th the Supreme Court agreed to hear another challenge which, if upheld, could gut the president's health-care law.
兩年前，奧巴馬醫改絕處逢生，躲過了憲法的攻擊，但反對者并不就此善罷甘休，11月7日最高法院決定“網開一面”，再給他們一次機會，如果他們心想事成，奧巴馬醫改可能就此土崩瓦解。
In King v Burwell the challengers are demanding that Obamacare be enforced as it was written. Since it was badly written—Congress passed a shoddy and confusing first draft, which Barack Obama signed—this could cause problems. The law specifies that subsidies will be available to people who buy their health insurance on an exchange “established by the State”. At the time, Democrats assumed that the states would all set up exchanges, but 27 refused to do so. Mr Obama got round this by setting up a federal exchange and offering subsidies through that, too. The plaintiffs say such subsidies are illegal.
在King v Burwell，反對者要求奧巴馬醫改如案推行，先前由于其表述拙劣，國會便先通過了一項草案，但其仍然晦澀難懂，漫不經心，法案中規定，在州立交易所中購買保險的人將得到補貼，當時，民主黨以為所有州都會設立交易所，但事實上27個州都拒絕如此，因而奧巴馬采取迂回戰術，設立聯邦交易所提供補貼，但控訴者稱此舉違法。
The administration argues that Congress never intended to doom its own law with a four-word time bomb. Over 5m Americans have bought their policies via federal exchanges. If the justices strike down their subsidies, millions could lose coverage, or have to pay more for it out of their own pockets. The court will hear the case early next year and rule by June.
政府稱國會從未想要置自己的法律于死地，500多萬美國民眾已經接受這項政策并通過聯邦交易所購買了保險，如果法律再取消他們的補貼，這些人會失去保障，或者得自己掏腰包購買保險。法院會在明年年初審理此案并在6月做出判決。
Gay marriage may also soon arrive on the justices' docket. On November 6th the Sixth Circuit became the first federal appellate court to uphold a state ban on gay marriage. Four circuits have nullified similar bans in recent months, so the new ruling creates a split. Are same-sex marriage bans compatible with the Constitution's guarantee of “the equal protection of the laws”? Only the Supreme Court can settle the matter. It may do so next year.
同性婚姻也在最高法院議程之內，11月6號，第六轄區的上訴法院率先禁止同性婚姻，4個轄區近幾個月也出臺了類似的禁令，這就與憲法有了出入，在憲法“法律平等保護”的保證下，這種禁令是否還有一席之地？只有最高法院能回答這一問題，答案可能會在明年揭曉。
On November 12th the Supremes heard a tricky case involving race and gerrymandering. The Alabama Legislative Black Caucus and the Alabama Democratic Conference claim that the Republican-controlled Alabama legislature violated the 14th Amendment (the equal protection clause, again) when it redrew electoral boundaries in 2012. The new map, the appellees argue, stuffed more blacks into areas where blacks already outnumbered whites, creating districts with black supermajorities topping 70% and solidifying the Republican Party's hold on other districts.
11月12日，最高法院聽審了一項錯綜復雜的案子，涉及種族和私自改劃分選區問題，阿拉巴馬州黑人立法預備會議及民主大會指控共和黨主導的州議會違反了第14條修訂案（同樣是平等保護條款），因為其私自重新劃分了2012年的選區，他們稱新的選區劃分將更多地黑人囊括到黑人數量已經占絕對優勢的地區，造成部分區的黑人占到了70%以上的絕對多數，共和黨對其他區的控制也因此穩如泰山，
Both sides have been opportunistic. Democrats are now railing against Alabama for using “rigid racial targets” in redistricting. Yet it was they who insisted that the state create the majority-black districts in 2001, to boost black voting power. Justice Antonin Scalia said to Richard Pildes, a lawyer for the appellants: “You're making the argument that the opponents of black plaintiffs used to make here.” Chief Justice John Roberts implied that it was unfair to ask Alabama to “hit a sweet spot” between too little racial gerrymandering and too much. Where to draw the line? (Which is, of course, the question.)
其實雙方都在投機取巧，民主黨現在對阿拉巴馬運用死板的種族主義重劃選區惡語相加，但2001年是他們舉大力塑造黑人主導區域增強黑人選舉權，法官安東寧·斯卡利亞對上訴人律師理查德說，你援引了過去受黑人控訴的被告的觀點，大法官約翰羅伯特表明要求阿拉巴馬在劃分選區時踩準種族問題的平衡點本身不公平，劃分界限在哪兒呢？（這當然是個問題）
Alabama, for its part, claims it is merely trying to comply with the Voting Rights Act, which has been interpreted to favour the creation of majority-minority districts wherever possible. As recently as last year, however, Alabama Republicans were challenging one part of the Voting Rights Act, in Shelby County v Holder. (They succeeded.)
阿拉巴馬則強調自己不過是在遵從選舉權法案，即抓住機會塑造少數民族占主導的州，但就在去年，阿拉巴馬的共和黨就在Shelby County v Holder違反了這一規定（他們成功了）.
Today, no one doubts that Alabama Republicans' real aim is to draft an electoral map that favours their own party. That is, after all, what both parties invariably do when they get the chance. Justice Elena Kagan scoffed: “Nobody would say that [the Voting Rights Act] required you to maintain a 78% [black] district.” Yet, as Justice Samuel Alito pointed out, gerrymandering based “purely on partisanship rather than on race” is perfectly legal. Whether it should be is another question.
如今，阿拉巴馬共和黨重劃選區為自身牟利的目的昭然若揭，這是任何一黨都不會放過的機會，檢察長埃琳娜·卡根指責說，每人規定選舉權法案要求一個周的黑人選民數量達到78%，但是正如法官塞繆爾所言，基于黨派利益而非種族歧視劃分選區是合法的，但是否合理又是另一個問題。
譯文屬譯生譯世
