(单词翻译:单击)
Hello, I'm Craig, and this is Crash Course Government and Politics,
嗨，我是克雷格，这是《政府和政治速成课》。
and today we're gonna look at the Supreme Court from a different angle.
今天我们将从一个不同的角度来看待最高法院。
We're gonna try to get inside the justices' heads.
我们要深入了解法官们的想法。
Not literally, obviously, but we're gonna look at the factors that influence the way they decide cases, other than the structure of the court system.
不是字面上的，很明显，但是我们要看的是影响他们决定案件的方式的因素，而不是法院系统的结构。
So we're pretty far away from the Constitution here and straddling the nebulous world of government, politics, and dare I say it, history.
所以我们现在离宪法还很远，跨越了政府、政治和历史的模糊界限。
Justices, especially on the Supreme Court, are supposed to be independent,
法官，尤其是最高法院的法官，应该是独立的，
but that doesn't mean they make their decisions in a vacuum.
但这并不意味着他们是在真空中做出决定的。
They make them in an office, just like most people who work.
他们是在办公室做决定的，就像大部分人工作的时候一样。
More importantly, they're influenced by a number of factors other than the case that's in front of them.
更重要的是，他们受到很多因素的影响而不是仅限于眼前的情况。
In terms of their role in government, justices might be influenced by Congress,
就法官在政府中的作用而言，他们可能会受到国会的影响，
because they know that, unless the case involves the Constitution directly, congress can respond to a decision overturning a law by passing a new law.
因为他们知道，除非案件直接涉及宪法，否则国会可以通过一项新法律来对推翻法律的决定作出反应。
Once justices have been selected and confirmed, the President has minimal effect on judicial decisions
一旦大法官被选定并确认，总统对司法判决的影响微乎其微，
although he's somewhat influential on lower court justices who might one day want to be on the Supreme Court.
尽管他对下级法院的大法官有一定的影响力，这些大法官可能有一天会想成为最高法院的大法官。
So you lower court justices, you be nice to that prezzy, OK?
所以你们下级法院的法官，对那个小可爱好点，好吗?
Knowing that the President get to make the call on who gets to be a justice with the help of the Senate
了解了总统可以在参议院的帮助下决定谁能成为一名法官，
of course, federal judges are more likely to make rulings that are more likely to get them considered for the court.
当然，联邦法官更有可能做出裁决，更有可能让法院考虑他们的建议。
Since the president only serves eight years maximum, though, it's hard for judges to know who will be President when a vacancy in the court opens up, so the President isn't much of a factor.
不过，由于总统最多只能服务8年，当法院出现空缺时，法官很难知道谁将成为总统，因此总统不是一个重要因素。
Much more influential on justices is history, which works in two ways.
对法官影响更大的是历史，它有两种作用。
First, the principles of precedent and stare decisis constrain the possible decisions that justices can make.
首先，先例和先例原则限制了法官可能做出的决定。
Second, and more historical in the sense we think of history, justices know that their decisions will be studied by generations of historians, and lawyers, and YouTube viewers,
第二,和更多的历史在某种意义上我们认为的历史,大法官们知道其决定将由一代又一代的历史学家和律师,以及YouTube观众研究,
and they are very well aware that some decisions, like Dred Scott, Brown V. Board, and Roe V. Wade, can have an enormous impact on American history.
他们很清楚地意识到,一些决定，如德瑞德·斯科特、布朗诉教育局案以及罗伊诉韦德案,可以在美国历史上产生巨大的影响。
And now the historical stakes are even higher, because they know that their decisions will be talked about by a bearded balding man on YouTube forever.
现在，历史的赌注甚至更高了，因为他们知道，他们的决定将永远被一个留着胡子的秃顶男人在YouTube上谈论。
Judges may behave strategically and consider the way that their decisions will be implemented by the executive branch
法官的行为可能具有战略意义，他们会考虑行政部门将如何执行他们的决定，
or how a part of one decision will lay the foundation for a change in the law in a decision later.
或者一个决定的一部分将如何为后来的决定中的法律变化奠定基础。
Although it isn't supposed to matter,
虽然这并不重要，
judges are influenced by their political ideology,
但法官会受到他们的政治意识形态的影响，
whether they're liberal or conservative or possibly by their party affiliation,
不管他们是自由派还是保守派，也不管他们是属于哪个党派，
whether they're Democrats or Republicans or the Tea Party or the Green Party
无论他们是民主党还是共和党，是茶党还是绿党，
or they're party animals, like Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
或者他们是党派动物，就像鲁斯·巴德·金斯伯格。
Party affiliation and political ideology are certainly important in the selection process –
政党和政治意识形态当然是重要的在选择过程中——
it's pretty rare that a Democratic president selects a Republican judge to be on the Supreme Court,
一位民主党总统在最高法院选择共和党法官并不多见,
especially these days, although sometimes it happens that a justice turns out to be more or less conservative or liberal than the president thought.
尤其是这几天,虽然有时法官会比总统想象的更保守或更自由。
Former Justice David Souter is a good example of a judge appointed by a Republican who turned out to be much more to the liking of Democrats.
前大法官戴维·苏特就是一个很好的例子，他是由一位共和党人任命的法官，结果却更受民主党人的欢迎。
Finally, and perhaps most important, judges are influenced by their philosophical orientation,
最后，或许也是最重要的一点，法官的哲学取向影响着他们，
by this I mean their judicial philosophy, not whether they're existentialists or logical positivists.
我指的是他们的司法哲学，而不是他们是存在主义者还是逻辑实证主义者。
While I'm sure that there are many judicial philosophies out there, the two which matter most, at least in terms of the way commentators talk about the Court, are judicial activism and judicial restraint.
虽然我相信有很多司法哲学，但其中最重要的两种，至少就评论员谈论法院的方式而言，是司法能动主义和司法克制。
Let's not show any restraint in actively going to the Thought Bubble right now.
让我们不要表现出任何克制，积极地进入思想泡泡。
Judicial activism is the idea that the Court should act as an instrument of policy, making it much more like the other two branches of government.
司法能动主义认为法院应该作为一种政策工具，使它更像政府的另外两个部门。
Judicial activists tend to look beyond the text of the Constitution and statutes, instead choose to consider the broader social implications of the decisions they render.
司法积极分子倾向于超越宪法和法规的文本，而选择考虑他们所作决定的更广泛的社会影响。
Activist judges are supposedly eager to overturn Congressional legislation to further their policy goals, and they're often accused by opponents of making law from the bench.
据推测，激进的法官们急于推翻国会立法，以推进他们的政策目标，他们经常被反对者指控在法官席上制定法律。
Judicial activism is often associated with liberal or Democratic justices, but it's not that simple.
司法能动主义通常与自由或民主的法官联系在一起，但它不是那么简单。
Judicial restraint, as the name implies, is the idea that judges should pay close attention to the precedent when they make their decisions, and that any changes that they make to the law should be incremental.
顾名思义，司法约束是指法官在作出决定时应密切注意先例，对法律的任何修改都应是渐进的。
They are the judicial tortoises to the activist hares.
他们是激进野兔对司法乌龟。
Judicial restraint is sometimes confused with originalism, the idea that any new law should be interpreted in the light of the Constitution as it was written in 1787.
司法上的限制有时会与原始主义相混淆，原始主义认为任何新法律都应该按照1787年制定的宪法来解释。
Basically a 'What Would James Madison Do?' orientation.
基本上就是“詹姆斯·麦迪逊会怎么做?”导向。
Although advocates of judicial restraint often rely on the Constitution's text, it's later precedent that restrains them more than the Constitution does.
虽然司法约束的拥护者通常依赖于宪法的文本，但后来的先例比宪法更能约束他们。
Judicial restraint is often equated with conservatism, which makes sense, as conservatives generally are against change, but as with judicial activism, the equivalence isn't perfect.
司法约束通常等同于保守主义，这是有道理的，因为保守主义者通常反对变革，但与司法能动主义一样，这种对等并不完美。
The two different philosophies are each associated with different historical moments.
这两种不同的哲学都与不同的历史时刻相关联。
The high tide of judicial activism occurred between the 50s and the mid-70s, when Earl Warren and Warren Burger were the Chief Justices.
司法能动主义的高潮发生在50年代到70年代中期，当时厄尔·沃伦和沃伦·伯格是首席大法官。
During this time, the Court made important decisions: expanding civil rights, voting rights, the right to privacy, and the rights of people accused of crimes.
在此期间，法院作出了重要的决定：大公民权利、投票权、隐私权和被控犯罪人的权利。
From the 1980s through the early 2000s, the Court led by William Rehnquist was known for its judicial restraint, dialing back civil rights, affirmative action, and desegregation programs and attempting to rein in the power of the national government and devolve some power back to the states.
从20世纪80年代到21世纪初，威廉·伦奎斯特领导的最高法院以司法克制、取消民权、平权行动和种族隔离项目、试图控制国家政府的权力并将部分权力下放给各州而闻名。
Thanks, Thought Bubble.
谢谢，思想泡泡。
So a minute ago, I said that activism wasn't the same as political liberalism and restraint wasn't the same as conservatism.
一分钟前，我说过激进主义和政治自由主义不一样，克制和保守主义不同。
Let me try to explain what I meant.
让我试着解释一下我的意思。
Mainly, the issue here is the claim that conservative justices practice judicial restraint.
这里的主要问题是，保守派法官实行司法约束。
If you've been paying attention to the Court recently, you'll see that this isn't always the case.
如果你最近一直在关注最高法院，你会发现情况并非总是如此。
The current Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Roberts has five generally conservative justices and four that are usually considered liberal.
目前由首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨领导的最高法院有五名总体上保守的大法官，四名通常被认为是自由派。
The conservatives were all appointed by Republican presidents and the liberals by Democratic presidents.
保守派均由共和党总统任命，自由派均由民主党总统任命。
These conservative justices have been pretty activist in some of their decisions, however.
然而，这些保守的法官在他们的一些判决中相当积极。
For example, the Citizens United case broke with previous precedent and allowed much more campaign fundraising than prior court decisions had, which is something that political conservatives wanted.
例如，公民联盟的案件打破了以前的先例，允许比以前的法院判决更多的竞选筹款，这是政治保守派想要的结果。
Recently, the Roberts court invalidated parts of the Voting Rights Act, which had been passed originally in 1965 and renewed by Congress in 2010.
最近，罗伯茨法院宣布《投票权法案》的部分内容无效。《投票权法案》最初于1965年通过，2010年被国会续签。
Here's why this is problematic: one of the core tenets of judicial restraint is that courts are not supposed to overturn the decisions of a democratically-elected Congress in order to make policy, unless Congress has passed laws that are clearly unconstitutional.
这就是问题所在：司法约束的核心原则之一是，法院不应该为了制定政策而推翻民选国会的决定，除非国会通过了明显违宪的法律。
It can work the other way, too.
它也可以以另一种方式工作。
While the Warren court was generally pretty activist and stocked with politically liberal justices,
虽然沃伦法院通常是相当活跃的，有很多政治自由主义的大法官，
Justice Breyer, who's usually considered politically liberal and was appointed by a Democrat, believes that judicial change should be incremental and doesn't want to make decisions that will cause sweeping changes.
但布雷耶大法官认为，司法改革应该是渐进式的，不希望做出会带来全面变革的决定。布雷耶大法官通常被认为是政治自由主义者，由民主党人任命。
So he's exercising judicial restraint.
所以他在行使司法约束。
So, I'm going to stop here, otherwise we're going to fall into the trap of talking politics, and I don't want to do that with him around,
所以,我要在这里停止,否则我们会落入的陷阱谈论政治,我不想和他在一起,
'cause he's always trying to sue American Eagle Apparel for violating his right of publicity, and I think it's fine, they've had that trademark for quite some time!
“因为他总是试图起诉美国鹰牌服装公司侵犯了他的宣传权，我认为这很好,他们在很长一段时间有商标!
I'm sorry, but you don't really have those rights, you're not human or even a real eagle.
我很抱歉，但你真的没有这些权利，你不是人类，甚至不是一只真正的鹰。
So let me just remind you of a few things in attempt to be as clear as possible.
让我来尽可能清晰地提醒你们。
First, judicial philosophy is not the same thing as political ideology, even though the media, especially the television media, likes to say they are.
首先，司法哲学不等同于政治意识形态，尽管媒体，尤其是电视媒体，喜欢这么说。
Judicial philosophy refers to activism and restraint, while political ideology refers to liberalism or conservatism.
司法哲学是行动主义和克制主义，政治意识形态是自由主义或保守主义。
It's possible to be both politically conservative and judicially activist, and vice versa.
政治上的保守和司法上的积极是可能的，反之亦然。
Second, there's lots of factors that influence the way judges make decisions, and the judges rarely let you know which one is at work.
其次，有很多因素影响法官的决策方式，法官很少让你知道哪一个在起作用。
Whenever you look at a Court decision, which we're gonna do soon, think about which factors went into that decision, especially in the way that Congress and the Executive will react to it.
当你看到法院的判决时，我们很快就会讲到，想想是什么因素导致了这个判决，尤其是国会和行政部门对它的反应。
Remember, despite what you may hear, all decisions are highly political, except the decision to end this video.
记住，不管你听到什么，所有的决定都是高度政治性的，除了结束这个视频的决定。
Thanks for watching; see you next week.
感谢收看，下周见。
Crash Course Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.
《政府与政治速成班》是与PBS数字工作室合作制作的。
Support for Crash Course US Government comes from Voqal.
对美国政府速成班的支持来自Voqal。
Voqal supports non-profits that use technology and media to advance social equity.
Voqal支持使用技术和媒体促进社会公平的非营利组织。
Learn more about their mission and initiatives at voqal.org.
在voqal.org上了解更多关于他们的使命和计划。
Crash Course was made with the help of all of these judicial activists.
速成班是在这些司法积极分子的帮助下开设的。
Thanks for watching.
谢谢收看。
