And she especially attacked the striking down, in 2013, of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v Holder, on the supposition that racism had waned enough to discard it. That, she wrote, was “l(fā)ike throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” Being contrary, she needed to be extra sharp. She took pride in the speed with which she wrote opinions, and in their clarity. Twice a week she lifted weights, did push-ups and generally honed herself into a lean, Armani-clad contender.
魯斯特別抨擊了2013年謝爾比縣訴霍爾德案中推翻投票權(quán)法案第五部分的行為，她認(rèn)為種族主義已經(jīng)減弱到足以拋棄它。她寫道，這“就像在暴風(fēng)雨中，因?yàn)槟銢]有淋濕而扔掉雨傘。”相反，她需要格外敏銳。她為自己寫意見的速度和條理清晰而自豪。魯斯每周舉重兩次，做俯臥撐，把自己鍛煉成一個(gè)瘦削的、穿著阿瑪尼服裝的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者。
In oral argument she liked to leap in first, keen to establish at the start whether the plaintiff had really been damaged, or not. (Her shy, soft, pause-filled delivery off the bench really speeded up then, to Brooklyn fast.) She often announced her dissents orally, from the bench, to show how much she disagreed, and in the trying 5 to 4 years when she regularly led the dissenters she made sure they spoke with one voice. On those days she wore her “dissenting collar”, a grey, stony, quietly menacing number. It fitted the occasion nicely.
在口頭辯論中，她喜歡搶先一步，急于在一開始就確定原告是否真的受到了損害。(她在法官席上靦腆、溫柔、停頓的講話速度真的加快了，快到了布魯克林。)她經(jīng)常在法官席上口頭宣布她的不同意見，以表明她有多不同意，在難熬的四五年時(shí)間中，當(dāng)她定期領(lǐng)導(dǎo)異議者時(shí)，她確保他們用一個(gè)聲音說話。在那些日子里，她戴著“異議領(lǐng)”，那是一件灰色的、石質(zhì)的、有威脅性的領(lǐng)子。它很適合那個(gè)場(chǎng)合。
Yet she did not see herself as disruptive, let alone an activist. If she became more of a dissenter with the years, it was because the court, after 2006, swung over to the activist right. At heart she was still what she had always been, a judicial minimalist. She was stunned by the lack of caution in the Roe v Waderuling of 1973 that legalised abortion; though she certainly approved of the outcome, reform should have come through state legislatures, where it was slowly starting to appear. She was shocked too when the court, while upholding Obamacare, found it illegal under the commerce clause of the constitution; that had been Congress’s domain since the 1930s.
然而，魯斯并不認(rèn)為自己是破壞性的，更不用說是一名激進(jìn)分子。如果隨著時(shí)間的推移，她變得更加持不同意見，那是因?yàn)?006年之后，最高法院轉(zhuǎn)向了激進(jìn)的右派。在內(nèi)心深處，魯斯仍然是她一直以來的樣子，一個(gè)極簡(jiǎn)主義者。1973年羅伊訴瓦德魯林案使墮胎合法化，魯斯對(duì)該案缺乏謹(jǐn)慎感到震驚；盡管她肯定贊同這一結(jié)果，但改革應(yīng)該通過州立法機(jī)構(gòu)進(jìn)行，在那里，改革已經(jīng)開始慢慢顯現(xiàn)。還使他感到震驚的一件事是，法院支持奧巴馬醫(yī)改，根據(jù)憲法的商業(yè)條款，這是非法的；自上世紀(jì)30年代以來，這一直是國會(huì)的地盤。
譯文由可可原創(chuàng)，僅供學(xué)習(xí)交流使用，未經(jīng)許可請(qǐng)勿轉(zhuǎn)載。
評(píng)論
打印
