评论
打印
The Supreme Court
最高法院
Drafting laws, vows and maps
起草法案，郑重起誓，划分选区
Obamacare, gay marriage and race: the justices' term is heating up
奥巴马医改，同性婚姻，种族问题：最高法院忙得团团转
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.
两年前，奥巴马医改绝处逢生，躲过了宪法的攻击，但反对者并不就此善罢甘休，11月7日最高法院决定“网开一面”，再给他们一次机会，如果他们心想事成，奥巴马医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，反对者要求奥巴马医改如案推行，先前由于其表述拙劣，国会便先通过了一项草案，但其仍然晦涩难懂，漫不经心，法案中规定，在州立交易所中购买保险的人将得到补贴，当时，民主党以为所有州都会设立交易所，但事实上27个州都拒绝如此，因而奥巴马采取迂回战术，设立联邦交易所提供补贴，但控诉者称此举违法。
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.
政府称国会从未想要置自己的法律于死地，500多万美国民众已经接受这项政策并通过联邦交易所购买了保险，如果法律再取消他们的补贴，这些人会失去保障，或者得自己掏腰包购买保险。法院会在明年年初审理此案并在6月做出判决。
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议程之内，11月6号，第六辖区的上诉法院率先禁止同性婚姻，4个辖区近几个月也出台了类似的禁令，这就与宪法有了出入，在宪法“法律平等保护”的保证下，这种禁令是否还有一席之地？只有最高法院能回答这一问题，答案可能会在明年揭晓。
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，最高法院听审了一项错综复杂的案子，涉及种族和私自改划分选区问题，阿拉巴马州黑人立法预备会议及民主大会指控共和党主导的州议会违反了第14条修订案（同样是平等保护条款），因为其私自重新划分了2012年的选区，他们称新的选区划分将更多地黑人囊括到黑人数量已经占绝对优势的地区，造成部分区的黑人占到了70%以上的绝对多数，共和党对其他区的控制也因此稳如泰山，
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.)
其实双方都在投机取巧，民主党现在对阿拉巴马运用死板的种族主义重划选区恶语相加，但2001年是他们举大力塑造黑人主导区域增强黑人选举权，法官安东宁·斯卡利亚对上诉人律师理查德说，你援引了过去受黑人控诉的被告的观点，大法官约翰罗伯特表明要求阿拉巴马在划分选区时踩准种族问题的平衡点本身不公平，划分界限在哪儿呢？（这当然是个问题）
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.)
阿拉巴马则强调自己不过是在遵从选举权法案，即抓住机会塑造少数民族占主导的州，但就在去年，阿拉巴马的共和党就在Shelby County v Holder违反了这一规定（他们成功了）.
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，阿拉巴马共和党重划选区为自身牟利的目的昭然若揭，这是任何一党都不会放过的机会，检察长埃琳娜·卡根指责说，每人规定选举权法案要求一个周的黑人选民数量达到78%，但是正如法官塞缪尔所言，基于党派利益而非种族歧视划分选区是合法的，但是否合理又是另一个问题。
译文属译生译世
