(单词翻译:单击)
听力文本
Hari Sreenivasan: The Supreme Court will begin its new term tomorrow with a docket full of blockbuster cases ranging from abortion and DACA to insanity defenses and LGBTQ discrimination. Joining me now from Washington D.C. with a preview of what to watch for is Amy Howe, co-founder and contributing reporter for SCOTUS blog. Amy, it seemed that the court was trying to avoid these kind of big third rail issues but they're jumping right into it. Let's start with LGBTQ rights.
Amy Howe: Yes. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a trio of cases, two of them will be argued together. They deal with whether or not federal employment discrimination laws protect LGBT employees. There's a provision of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits employment discrimination and here's the key phrase "because of sex," and so for many years this had not been interpreted to protect LGBT employees. But in recent years, a couple of federal courts of appeals have interpreted that way. So now the Supreme Court's going to weigh in.
Hari Sreenivasan: All right. And then we have DACA. The Trump administration says that basically the Obama administration didn't have the right to do this. They're challenging this.
Amy Howe: Yes. And so there's going to be two questions before the Supreme Court. The first is whether or not this is something that courts can review at all or whether this is the kind of decision left to the executive branch of the federal government. And then there's the question of the legality of the Trump administration's decision to end DACA. But more broadly this is a program that nearly 800,000 young adults have benefited from. And it provides them with not only protection from deportation but then potentially unlocks other benefits like the ability to get a driver's license to work legally in this country. And even more broadly than that the Supreme Court's going to be weighing in it in essence on the hot button issue of immigration during the middle of the presidential campaign.
Hari Sreenivasan: Right. And one of the things that motivates people on both sides of an issue is abortion and there's a case coming up that seems awfully familiar or awfully similar I should say, to a case that they just had a little while ago?
Amy Howe: Yes back in 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court by a vote of 5 to 3 struck down a Texas law that requires doctors who perform abortions in Texas to have what's known as admitting privileges, the right to admit their patients at local hospitals. Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the court's four more liberal justices in striking that law down. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit earlier this year upheld a very similar law in Louisiana. So the abortion providers asked the Supreme Court to step in and block the law temporarily to give them time to appeal. And Justice Kennedy has retired since then was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The court, when it announced it was going to take up the Louisiana case, agreed to hear a cross appeal from the state that said that we also think you should weigh in on whether or not the abortion providers have the legal right to challenge this health and safety law at all and so that's going to be an interesting issue to watch. It could give the Supreme Court potentially an off ramp to avoid deciding whether or not the Louisiana law itself is constitutional and what happens in Louisiana if for example this law is upheld.
Hari Sreenivasan: How many providers are there that could continue performing abortions?
Amy Howe: Abortion providers when they came to the Supreme Court, they said there'd be only one doctor providing abortions in the early stages of pregnancy and none at all after 17 weeks. Justice Kavanaugh, when the court issued that temporary hold back in February, said look, you know this there's a lot of disputed facts here and I think we should allow the law to go into effect to see how it actually plays out whether or not that's actually the case.
Hari Sreenivasan: All right Amy Howe from SCOTUS blog thanks so much.
Amy Howe: Thanks for having me.
重点解析
1.benefit from 从中获益
Customers are to benefit from a rebate on their electricity bills.
顾客将从他们的电费退费中得到实惠。
2.right into 正好
They walked right into a booby-trap and got blown to smithereens.
他们正好踩上了饵雷，结果被炸得粉身碎骨。
3.go into effect 实施
The regulations go into force as of today.
本条例自即日起施行。
4.range from 范围
Madagascar's ecosystems range from rainforest to semi-desert.
马达加斯加生态系统类型多样，从雨林到半荒漠等不一而足。
5.weigh in 表达意见
Cranston and others were improperly trying to weigh in on the decision.
克兰斯顿和其他人都不合时宜地想在这个决定中发表高见。
参考译文
哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：最高法院明天将开始新一届审期，有许多重磅案件要审理，从堕胎问题“童年入境暂缓遣返”计划（DACA），到精神障碍辩护，再到性少数群体（LGBTQ）的歧视问题，不一而足。今天来到节目现场的还有来自华盛顿的艾米·豪，他是美国最高法院（SCOTUS）blog的联合创始人以及特约撰稿记者。艾米，似乎最高法院正试着避免这类颇具争议的问题，但他们现在正在处理这些事情。咱们先从LGBTQ群体的权利说起吧。
艾米·豪：是的，周二，最高法院将审理3个案子，其中2个将一起审理。案子内容关于联邦政府的歧视法是否应该保护LGBT群体的员工。美国《民权法案》中有一条规定禁止歧视员工。其中有个关键词语是“因性别而歧视”。但多年来，这条规定的解读一直都没提到保护LGBT员工的事儿。不过，近年来，有些联邦法院的上诉是以这种方式解读的。所以，现在，最高法院也开始关注这个问题。
哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：好的。然后还有一个问题是关于DACA的。特朗普政府认为，奥巴马政府没有权利这样做，他们质疑这样的做法是否正确。
艾米·豪：没错，所以，最高法院要面临2个问题。第一个问题是：这是法院应该审理的问题，还是联邦政府的行政分支应该处理的问题。然后还有特朗普政府终结DACA是否合法的问题。不过，从更广泛的层面来说，这个项目让近80万年轻人受益。该项目为这些年轻人提供的不仅是免于受到驱逐的保护，而且也有其他好处，比如能获得驾驶证，然后在美国合法工作。从更更广泛的层面来说，最高法院将从本质来考虑这个问题，在总统竞选活动如火如荼之际，考虑一下烫手山芋移民的问题。
哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：两方人都很关注的一个问题是堕胎问题。是不是不久前有个关于堕胎的案子广为人知，而且之前也发生过类似的案子？
艾米·豪：是的，2016年的时候，大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚去世了。最高法院以5:3的票比为德克萨斯州敲定了一项法律。该法要求德克萨斯州做堕胎手术的医生要有收病人住院的特权。法官安东尼·肯尼迪跟最高法院的另外4名自由派法官一起敲定了这项法律。美国第五巡回上诉法院今年早些时候在路易斯安那州敲定了一项类似的法律。提供堕胎服务的人请最高法院介入并暂时阻止该法落实，因为他们需要时间上诉。肯尼迪法官在这件事之后就退休了，接替他的是布雷特·卡瓦诺法官。当法院宣布要接手路易斯安那州的这个案子时，法院允许该州就该案子进行交互上诉，他们认为，我们也觉得你也加入进来讨论这件事。讨论提供堕胎服务的人是否有合法权利来挑战这项有关健康和安全的法律。对于外界来说，这是一出好戏。这样做给了最高法院一个机会——不用就路易斯安那州的这项法律是否符合宪法来做决定，以及不用考虑路易斯安那州会面临怎样的境地（比如如果该法通过的话）。
哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：有多少堕胎服务的提供者可以继续提供这样的服务呢？
艾米·豪：堕胎服务的提供方来到最高法院的时候，孕期初的时候，只有一名医生提供堕胎服务。孕期17周的时候，就没有任何医生提供这样的服务了。2月宣布暂时止步的时候，卡瓦诺法官说，看，这里存在很多备受争议的问题。我觉得我们应该允许该法生效，看看效果如何，看看是否是我们想的那样。
哈里·斯里尼瓦桑：好的。让我们感谢来自SCOTUS的艾米·豪。
艾米·豪：感谢邀请我。
译文为可可英语翻译，未经授权请勿转载！
