-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
SCOTT SIMON, HOST:
Americans are used to the hurly-burly of political and legal debate. But historically, presidents have been careful not to criticize individual judges or their motives1. Of course, President Trump2 has broken with a lot of institutional traditions over the last year. And this week, he tweeted and railed against judges who have ordered a temporary halt to his ban on people entering or returning to the U.S. from seven mostly Muslim countries. The president's words left many lawyers and historians on the right and the left aghast, or at least scratching their heads. NPR's legal affairs correspondent, Nina Totenberg, reports.
NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE3: To recap briefly4, President Trump has belittled5 all four judges who've ruled against him so far in the travel ban case. He's referred to the first judge to rule, a George W. Bush appointee, as a so-called judge. When the case was heard by an appeals court panel, he told a group of police chiefs that even a, quote, "bad high school student" could understand the ban was authorized6 by law.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Courts seem to be so political. And it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what's right.
TOTENBERG: The next night, when the appeals court judges, including another Republican appointee, ruled unanimously against him, Trump responded this way.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
TRUMP: It's a political decision, and we're going to see them in court.
TOTENBERG: Presidents, for the most part, avoid public feuds7 with courts for a very practical reason.
JOSH BLACKMAN: Trump's statements are extremely self-defeating.
TOTENBERG: Josh Blackman is a constitutional law professor at South Texas School of Law.
BLACKMAN: The more he says that the courts are biased8 and will rule against him because they're stupid, it subconsciously9 increases the chance that they rule against him.
TOTENBERG: But there's a more serious reason, too, he observes. Under our system of three branches of government, the courts ultimately are the checks on the legislative10 and executive branches when they exceed or even abuse the limits of their power. Understanding that, presidents going back to the founders11 have largely refrained from personal attacks on judges. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, avoided publicly berating12 Chief Justice John Marshall about decisions limiting the power of the president and the legislature. James Simon is the author of four books about the court and the presidency13.
JAMES SIMON: Jefferson spoke14 privately15 about what he called Marshall's twistifications of the law, but he didn't do it publicly.
TOTENBERG: Jeff Shesol, author of a book about Franklin Roosevelt's infamous16 court packing plan, makes a similar observation.
JEFF SHESOL: Privately, Roosevelt was very bitter about his treatment at the hands of the Supreme17 Court. But even in the height of the court fight, he never allowed it to get personal in the way that we have heard recently from President Trump.
TOTENBERG: Modern presidents have followed a similar path. Here, for instance, is President George W. Bush after the Supreme Court ruled that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had the right to challenge their detentions18.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
GEORGE W. BUSH: We'll abide19 by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
TOTENBERG: President Obama was widely criticized in 2010 for similar comments about a campaign financing decision, mainly because he chose to do it at a State of the Union speech. Still, the tradition is that while presidents are free to criticize court decisions, they should avoid personal attacks on judges. Why? Because judges have no actual power of enforcement. They don't have troops to carry out orders. They have no power of the purse. Yet our system of laws depends on lowly citizens and presidents abiding20 by court rulings. Throughout our history, the Supreme Court has entered national crises, often preventing presidents from doing what they want to do. Indeed, sometimes the court's verdicts are not vindicated21 by history. And yet presidents have complied with those rulings.
That gets to the ultimate worry about Trump. Less than a month into his presidency, many leading lawyers and scholars have begun to wonder what would happen if the president ultimately loses this case or another big one. Would he be so sure of his cause that he would refuse to comply? That would undoubtedly22 provoke a constitutional crisis, and refusal to comply with a Supreme Court decision would almost certainly be grounds for a serious attempt at impeachment23. Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.
1 motives | |
n.动机,目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 trump | |
n.王牌,法宝;v.打出王牌,吹喇叭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 byline | |
n.署名;v.署名 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 briefly | |
adv.简单地,简短地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 belittled | |
使显得微小,轻视,贬低( belittle的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 authorized | |
a.委任的,许可的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 feuds | |
n.长期不和,世仇( feud的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 biased | |
a.有偏见的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 subconsciously | |
ad.下意识地,潜意识地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 legislative | |
n.立法机构,立法权;adj.立法的,有立法权的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 founders | |
n.创始人( founder的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 berating | |
v.严厉责备,痛斥( berate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 presidency | |
n.总统(校长,总经理)的职位(任期) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 spoke | |
n.(车轮的)辐条;轮辐;破坏某人的计划;阻挠某人的行动 v.讲,谈(speak的过去式);说;演说;从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 privately | |
adv.以私人的身份,悄悄地,私下地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 infamous | |
adj.声名狼藉的,臭名昭著的,邪恶的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 detentions | |
拘留( detention的名词复数 ); 扣押; 监禁; 放学后留校 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 abide | |
vi.遵守;坚持;vt.忍受 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 abiding | |
adj.永久的,持久的,不变的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 vindicated | |
v.澄清(某人/某事物)受到的责难或嫌疑( vindicate的过去式和过去分词 );表明或证明(所争辩的事物)属实、正当、有效等;维护 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 undoubtedly | |
adv.确实地,无疑地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 impeachment | |
n.弹劾;控告;怀疑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|