肯尼迪大法官退休：影響最高法院30年的搖擺票

WASHINGTON — Justice Anthony M. Kennedy has served for more than 30 years under two chief justices: William H. Rehnquist and John G. Roberts Jr. Courts are by tradition named for the chief justice. Since 2005, it has been the Roberts court.

華盛頓——安東尼·M·肯尼迪(Anthony M. Kennedy)任大法官三十余載，歷經(jīng)威廉·H·倫奎斯特(William H. Rehnquist)法院和小約翰·G·羅伯茨(John G. Roberts Jr.)法院。按照傳統(tǒng)，最高法院以時任首席大法官的名字命名，自2005年起為羅伯茨法院。

But if influence were the deciding factor, it would be more accurate to speak of the period since 1988 as the Kennedy court.

但如果影響力是決定性因素，1988年以來，將最高法院稱為肯尼迪法院更為準確。

Justice Kennedy has occupied a place at the court’s ideological center for his entire tenure, though he shared the middle ground with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor for most of his first two decades. On her retirement in 2006, his vote became the undisputed crucial one in most of the court’s closely divided cases.

在整個任期內(nèi)，肯尼迪大法官身居最高法院的意識形態(tài)中心點，盡管他在任期前20年的大部分時間里同桑德拉·戴·奧康納(Sandra Day O’Connor)一起站在中間派立場。待到2006年奧康納退休，他的這一票就無可爭議地成了最高法院大多數(shù)勢均力敵的案件中的關鍵。

There have been about 51 decisions in which Justice Kennedy joined a liberal majority in a closely divided case, while Chief Justice Roberts dissented. All of those precedents could be in jeopardy, said Lee Epstein, a law professor and political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis.

在大約51項雙方勢均力敵的判決中，肯尼迪大法官加入了占多數(shù)的自由派，而羅伯茨首席大法官則站在反對的一方。圣路易斯華盛頓大學(Washington University)的法學教授、政治學者李·愛潑斯坦(Lee Epstein)說，所有這些判例都有可能陷入險境。

To be sure, Justice Kennedy often voted with the court’s conservatives. He wrote the majority opinion in Citizens United, which allowed unlimited campaign spending by corporations and unions, and he joined the majority in Bush v. Gore, which handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. Justice Kennedy also voted with the court’s conservatives in cases on the Second Amendment and voting rights.

當然，肯尼迪大法官也經(jīng)常站在保守派一方。他起草了聯(lián)合公民(Citizens United)一案的多數(shù)意見書，該判決允許公司和工會無限制地向競選活動投入資金。在布什訴戈爾案(Bush v. Gore)中，他站在多數(shù)派一方，將2000年總統(tǒng)選舉贏家判給了喬治·W·布什(George W. Bush)。在有關第二修正案和投票權的案件中，肯尼迪大法官也投票支持最高法的保守派。

Not infrequently, though, he joined the court’s liberal wing in important cases on contested social issues, including liberal decisions on gay rights, abortion, affirmative action and the death penalty. A court containing two Trump appointees could chip away at those rulings.

然而，在關于有爭議的社會問題的重要案件中，他經(jīng)常支持最高法的自由派，包括關于同性戀權利、墮胎、平權行動和死刑的自由派裁決。如果最高法中有兩名由特朗普任命的大法官，這些裁決可能會被逐一推翻。

Mr. Trump has vowed, for instance, to appoint justices committed to overruling Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. That would not happen overnight if another Trump appointee joined the court, but aggressive restrictions on access to abortion would very likely be sustained.

比如，1973年的羅訴韋德案(Roe v. Wade)的裁決確立了墮胎的憲法權利，然而特朗普發(fā)誓要任命否決該裁決的大法官。雖然這種事不會在一夜之間發(fā)生，但是如果另一個被特朗普任命的法官加入最高法院，對墮胎的嚴格限制很可能會持續(xù)下去。

The vote count in the court’s most recent abortion case is telling. In 2016, when the court was short-handed after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Kennedy joined the court’s four-member liberal wing to strike down a restrictive Texas abortion law. That ruling would almost certainly have come out differently from a court without Justice Kennedy and with two Trump appointees.

最高法院最近一次墮胎案中的投票數(shù)字很能說明問題。2016年，最高法院在安東寧·斯卡利亞大法官(Antonin Scalia)去世后人數(shù)不足，肯尼迪大法官加入了法院的四人自由派，推翻了德克薩斯州一項嚴格限制墮胎的法律。如果把肯尼迪大法官換成兩名特朗普任命的大法官，那么這項裁決幾乎肯定會有所不同。

The right to same-sex marriage seems more secure, and Mr. Trump has said he considers the issue settled. But a court including a second Trump appointee would be quite unlikely to expand gay rights and would instead be receptive to arguments from religious groups that object to same-sex marriage.

同性婚姻權利似乎安全一點，特朗普說過他認為這個問題已經(jīng)解決。但包括兩個特朗普任命大法官的最高法院，不太可能擴大同性戀權利，而是會樂于接受反對同性婚姻的宗教團體的論點。

According to a court spokeswoman, Justice Kennedy told his colleagues on Wednesday of his decision to step down, effective July 31.

據(jù)最高法院一位發(fā)言人稱，肯尼迪大法官于周三告知同事自己決定退休，于7月31日生效。

“It has been the greatest honor and privilege to serve our nation in the federal judiciary for 43 years, 30 of those years on the Supreme Court,” Justice Kennedy said in a statement.

肯尼迪大法官在一份聲明中表示：“在聯(lián)邦司法系統(tǒng)為國家服務43年，其中30年在最高法院任職，這是我的最高榮譽與榮幸。”

In a letter to Mr. Trump, Justice Kennedy, 81, expressed “profound gratitude for having had the privilege to seek in each case how best to know, interpret and defend the Constitution and the laws that must always conform to its mandates and promises.”

在致特朗普的信中，81歲的肯尼迪大法官稱“能在每宗案件中探求如何以最佳方式了解、闡釋和捍衛(wèi)憲法，以及法律務必遵從于它的授權和承諾，令我滿懷感恩。”

That language — earnest, flowery, a little mystical — was characteristic of his judicial writing, which was not to everyone’s taste.

這種熱情、華麗、有點神秘感的語言，是他司法寫作的特點，不見得符合所有人的口味。

Justice Kennedy’s opinions were studded with vague and soaring language.

肯尼迪大法官的意見書中往往充斥著模糊和崇高的語言。

“At the heart of liberty,” he said in a 1992 decision upholding the constitutional right to abortion, “is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life.”

“在自由的核心，”他在1992年維護墮胎憲法權利的裁決中說道，“是定義自身存在的概念、意義、宇宙與人類生命奧秘的權利。”

Phrases like that infuriated his critics, notably Justice Scalia. In a 2003 dissent, Justice Scalia mocked “its famed sweet-mystery-of-life passage,” calling it “the passage that ate the rule of law.”

類似的言語激怒了他的批評者，特別是斯卡利亞大法官。在2003年的一篇不同意見書中，斯卡利亞嘲笑了“那著名的甜蜜生命奧秘段落”，還稱其為“吃掉法治的段落”。

Justice Kennedy’s final opinions on the court had a valedictory quality. He wrote an inconclusive decision in a clash between a baker and a gay couple, and he joined a pair of decisions ducking the question of whether the Constitution prohibits partisan gerrymandering.

肯尼迪大法官在法庭上發(fā)表的最后幾次意見具有告別演說的性質(zhì)。他在烘焙師與同性戀伴侶沖突一案中寫下了一篇無結(jié)論意見書，并且在幾個案件中支持回避憲法是否禁止黨派不公正劃分選區(qū)的問題。

Justice Kennedy valued civility and dignity, and the Trump years seemed to take a toll. In Tuesday’s decision upholding Mr. Trump’s travel ban, he seemed to chide the president for incivility even as he said the courts could do nothing to force him to behave with the decorum Justice Kennedy prized.

肯尼迪大法官重視文明和尊嚴，在特朗普的時代，這一點似乎要付出代價。在周二決定維持特朗普的旅行禁令的同時，他似乎指責了總統(tǒng)的粗魯，盡管他說，法庭無法強迫總統(tǒng)以他所珍視的莊重行事。

“There are numerous instances in which the statements and actions of government officials are not subject to judicial scrutiny or intervention,” he wrote. “That does not mean those officials are free to disregard the Constitution and the rights it proclaims and protects.”

“有很多例子說明政府官員的言論和行為不受司法審查或干預，”他寫道。“這并不意味著這些官員可以自由地無視憲法及其主張和保護的權利。”

“The oath that all officials take to adhere to the Constitution is not confined to those spheres in which the judiciary can correct or even comment upon what those officials say or do,” he wrote. “Indeed, the very fact that an official may have broad discretion, discretion free from judicial scrutiny, makes it all the more imperative for him or her to adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its promise.”

“所有官員遵守憲法的誓言，并不局限于司法系統(tǒng)可以對官員的言行進行糾正甚或評價的范疇，”他寫道。“實際上，恰恰由于官員可能會擁有廣泛決定權，而且不受司法審查，他們務必要遵守憲法及其意義和承諾。”

A new Trump appointee would almost certainly vote with the court’s most conservative members, thrusting Chief Justice Roberts into the court’s ideological center. The chief justice has drifted slightly to the left in recent years, but aside from two votes sustaining President Barack Obama’s health care law, it is hard to point to a major decision in which he disappointed political conservatives.

特朗普的新人選幾乎必然跟隨法院最為保守的成員投票，將首席大法官羅伯茨推向法院的意識形態(tài)中心點。近年來，首席大法官略微偏左，但除了支持貝拉克·奧巴馬(Barack Obama)總統(tǒng)的醫(yī)療保健法案的兩票以外，很難指出他有哪個重大決定曾使政治保守派失望。

“Should Roberts become the median, the court could move well to the right, taking its place as the most conservative court in modern history,” Professor Epstein said.

“如果羅伯茨是中位數(shù)，那么法院可能已經(jīng)徹底偏右了，成為了現(xiàn)代歷史上最為保守的法院，”愛潑斯坦說道。

In the Supreme Court term that just concluded, Chief Justice Roberts already seemed to be moving to the court’s center, voting with the majority in divided cases more often than any other justice. The term yielded an extraordinary run of conservative rulings, including blockbusters upholding Mr. Trump’s travel ban and dealing a sharp blow to public unions.

在剛剛結(jié)束的最高法院庭期內(nèi)，羅伯茨似乎已經(jīng)在向中心移動，在有分歧的案件中，他比其他任何一個法官都更多地加入了多數(shù)派。該庭期出現(xiàn)了一連串驚人的保守派判決，包括轟動性地支持特朗普的旅行禁令，以及對工會施加重大打擊。

“This term gave us a preview of what the Supreme Court would be like if Chief Justice Roberts were to become the swing vote,” said Leah Litman, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine. “Progressives will lose, and they will lose a lot, except in a few criminal cases.”

“本次任期讓我們提前看見了如果首席大法官羅伯茨成為了搖擺票的話，最高法院會是什么樣子，”加州大學歐文分校(University of California, Irvine)法學教授利亞·利特曼(Leah Litman)說。“進步派會輸，除了幾起刑事案外，他們會輸?shù)艉芏喟缸印?rdquo;

Legal experts struggled to recall a recent example of a chief justice who was also the swing justice.

法律專家想不到近現(xiàn)代還有哪位首席大法官同時也是搖擺大法官。

Justice Kennedy himself did not like to be called the swing justice. “The cases swing,” he said in 2015 at Harvard Law School. “I don’t.”

肯尼迪大法官本人并不喜歡被人稱為搖擺大法官。“案件在搖擺，”他于2015年在哈佛法學院說。“我不搖擺。”

That was correct. His jurisprudence contained an idiosyncratic mix of commitments, but they were fixed and strong, and they yielded vigorous opinions, very often speaking for the majority.

這話沒錯。他的法學是多種責任感的獨特混合體，但這些責任感是堅定而強硬的，由此得出了有力的、往往為多數(shù)群體發(fā)聲的意見。

“Every day you’re not in the majority you think is a dark day,” he told C-Span in 2009. By that standard, Justice Kennedy had very few dark days.

“不管什么時候，不在多數(shù)的一方會讓你覺得這一天是灰暗的，”他2009年對C-Span頻道說。照此標準，肯尼迪大法官經(jīng)歷過的灰暗日子可謂少之又少。