来源：《基督科学箴言报》
原文刊登日期：2022年3月25日
Every time a demographic barrier has been broken by a nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court – in ethnicity, race, religion, or gender – praise has collided with doubts. Would a more diverse bench of justices bring better justice and a more perfect expression of American democracy?
每当美国最高法院的提名打破了人口统计学上的壁垒——在民族、种族、宗教或性别方面——赞美与怀疑就会碰撞在一起。一个更加多样化的大法官队伍会带来更好的司法公正和更完美的美国民主吗？
During this week’s questioning of nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson by the Senate Judiciary Committee, those doubts seemed far fewer than for nominees in the past who broke demographic barriers. This is a step closer to the ideal set forth by the main author of the Constitution. “The genius of republican liberty,” James Madison wrote, “seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that ... the trust should be placed not in a few, but in a number of hands.”
在本周参议院司法委员会对被提名人凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊的质询中，这些质疑似乎比过去那些打破人口统计壁垒的被提名人要少得多。这向宪法主要起草人詹姆斯·麦迪逊提出的理想又迈进了一步。“共和主义的公民权利，”詹姆斯·麦迪逊写道，“一方面，要求所有权力来自人民；另一方面，……不应该把信任置于少数人手中，而是放在一批人手里。”
Are the principles of self-governance inherent in the Constitution a natural and eternal unifier of a society split on issues like race? Are the Constitution and its enforcer, the high court, above identities like race, gender, or religion? Viewed case by case, perhaps not. But over the longer arc of history, the court’s decisions show that American society is lifting up its thinking. In 1896 the court upheld segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson. Fifty-eight years later, its Brown v. Board of Education, it corrected that decision.
宪法中固有的自治原则是一个在种族等问题上分裂的社会的自然和永恒的统一体吗？宪法及其执行者，即最高法院，是否高于种族、性别或宗教等身份认同？从具体情况来看，也许不是这样。但从更长的历史轨迹来看，最高法院的裁决表明，美国社会的思维正在提升。1896年，最高法院在普莱西诉弗格森案中支持种族隔离。58年后，在布朗诉教育委员会案中纠正了这一决定。
One uniquely American tool for bending law toward the country’s founding principles is dissent – and it has been used perhaps most skillfully by the court’s “firsts.” In his 1928 dissent of Olmsted v. United States, Justice Louis Brandeis argued against unlawful wire tapping. The nation’s first Jewish Supreme Court Justice set an enduring standard for privacy when he wrote about the “right to be left alone.” Justices Thurgood Marshall, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Antonin Scalia – the first Black man, first Jewish woman, and first Italian American – cast long shadows of influence through their dissents – dissents informed by the diversity of thought shaped by their life experiences.
美国独有的一种使法律向建国原则靠拢的手段就是持异议，而最高法院的“第一人们”或许最善于利用这一手段。大法官路易斯·布兰代斯在1928年对奥尔姆斯特德诉美国案的异议中反对非法窃听。这位美国第一位犹太裔最高法院大法官在写“独处的权利”时，为隐私设定了一个持久的标准。瑟古德·马歇尔大法官、露丝·巴德·金斯伯格大法官和安东宁·斯卡利亚大法官——分别是第一个黑人男性大法官、第一个犹太女性大法官和第一个意大利裔大法官——通过他们的异议(他们的生活经历塑造了思想的多样性)产生了深远的影响。
“We must dissent because America can do better,” Justice Marshall observed, “because America has no choice but to do better.”
“我们必须提出异议，因为美国可以做得更好，”马歇尔大法官说，“因为美国别无选择，只能做得更好。”
If Judge Jackson is confirmed, she will not only be a role model as a Black person and a woman, but will also be a reminder of the need for justice to be universal in its application to all. A diverse court helps achieve that. Each time the range of individual perspectives on the court has widened, the principles entrusted to its care have been renewed.
如果杰克逊法官的提名获得确认，她不仅将成为黑人和女性的榜样，而且还将提醒人们，公正必须普遍适用于所有人。多元化的最高法院有助于实现这一目标。每当最高法院的个人视角范围扩大时，委托最高法院照管的原则就会更新。