当前所在的位置:首页>法治时评 > >正文

斯卡利亚大法官“宪法原旨主义”精彩判决意见!
2016
02 /15
20:12
消息来源
王奕博律师
斯卡利亚大法官“宪法原旨主义”精彩判决意见!

2011年,Richard A. Posner法官在《The New Republic》撰文指出,“斯卡利亚是美国过去25年里最有影响力的法官”。斯卡利亚是“宪法原旨主义(Doctrine of Originalism) 最具代表性人物,所谓宪法原旨主义,是指在解释美国宪法时,竭力探索、发现并应用宪法起草者和批准者在起草和批准美国宪法时,对于宪法条文究竟是如何理解的。

 


(1986年9月,在当时的首席大法官Warren Burger的主持下,斯卡利亚宣誓成为美国最高法院大法官)

 

以下我们简要来看看斯卡利亚大法官的几个代表性判决意见节选,以表敬意和纪念。

 

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

Protecting the Right to Bear Arms (人民持有、携带武器的权利)

 

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Thismeaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified apre-existing right.” -2008

 

在斯卡利亚大法官书写的多数派判决意见中,他提及他个人对于美国宪法第二修正案赋予美国人民持有、携带武器的权利,这一宪法规定历史背景的理解。

 
(1986年,斯卡利亚被里根总统提名为最高法院法官)

 

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

On Same-Sex Marriage关于同性恋婚姻)

 

 “This is a naked judicial claim to legislative— indeed, super-legislative — power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.” -2015

 

2015年美国最高法院将同性恋婚姻全面合法化的Obergefell v. Hodges一案的判决意见中,斯卡利亚大法官非常愤怒地攻击另一位大法官肯尼迪为首的多数派判决意见。他说,尽管对于婚姻问题,法律是怎么规定的 “对于我个人来说,并没有十分重大的影响”,但是多数派法官篡夺了美国人民通过立法程序管理他们自己事务的权力。

 
(1986年,斯卡利亚与首席大法官伦奎斯特)

 

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning (2014)

Recess Appointments Clause休会任命条款”—总统在参议院休会时, 可直接任命政府官员,而无需参议院批准)

 

The court’s decision transforms the recess-appointment power from a tool carefully designed to fill a narrow and specific need into a weapon to be wielded by future presidents against future Senates.” -2014

 

最高法院的一致判决意见对总统“休会任命”权力作出了更加详细地限定,但斯卡利亚大法官在他的concurrence opinion中对于最高法院在该判决意见中限定的“休会期限”(the majority’s ten-day rule)表达了上述质疑。 

 

关于“休会任命条款”,在美剧《纸牌屋》第三季里,Claire Underwood担任美国驻联合国大使的提名,一开始未能通过参议院批准;后来,Claire的老公,总统Francis Underwood就是通过行使“休会任命条款”赋予总统的权力,让Claire顺利当上了驻联合国大使。剧情大概也是受到该案的启发。

 


(斯卡利亚在最高法院办公室)

 

King v.Burwell (2015)

On the Affordable Care Act (奥巴马医保改革法案)

 

“Perhaps sensing the dismal failure of its efforts to show that ‘established by the State’ means‘ established by the State or the Federal Government,’ the Court tries to palm off the pertinent statutory phrase as ‘inartful drafting.’ ” -2015

 

2015年,美国最高法院第二次裁决支持了奥巴马总统的医保改革法案Affordable Care Act, 但是斯卡利亚大法官指责多数意见法官陷入了法律解释的欺骗“interpretive jiggery-pokery”),并称在保护奥巴马医保改革法案的问题上,最高法院做过了头,以至于可以把该法案称为“最高法院医保法”( SCOTUScare

 

 

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

劳伦斯诉德克萨斯州案,美国最高法院推翻先例以及德克萨斯州《反鸡奸法》,宣布各州政府不得禁止成年人间相互同意进行的同性性行为,同性恋在美国正式非刑事化即去罪化。但是,斯卡利亚大法官在他的反对意见中,猛烈抨击最高法院多数派判决意见:

 

Today’s opinion is the product of a Court,which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium(耻辱) that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”“This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation…

 
(斯卡利亚和他的夫人Maureen, 2012年参加白宫国宴,他们共有9个孩子)

 

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

On Abortion: Calling for Voters to Decide (妇女是否有权堕胎)

 

 “By foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid nationalrule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongsand intensifies the anguish. We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.” -1992

 

PlannedParenthood v. Casey一案中,最高法院以5比4裁决支持妇女享有堕胎的权利,但是允许各州在程序上采取一些限制措施。大法官斯卡利亚和首席大法官伦奎斯特对此判决表示反对。斯卡利亚认为尽管各州享有准予妇女堕胎的权利,但各州不应该被强制性要求允许妇女堕胎。他进一步认为该问题应当通过民主政治程序解决,而不应当由法院裁决决定。斯卡利亚大法官的突然去世,恰好发生在另外一件与堕胎有关的案件Whole Woman’s Health v.Cole,即将在最高法院进行口头辩论之际。

上一篇:斯卡利亚大法官的十大金句 下一篇:嫁给有钱人的法律必修课
网友评论
文明上网理性发言,请遵守新闻评论服务协议
全部评论
中国法治国际互联网站版权所有,未经协议授权,禁止下载使用或建立镜像
Copyright © 2014 by Chinaruleoflaw.net All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part
without permission is prohibited
备案号:京ICP备09001449号 京公网安备:110108008263号 许可证号:京ICP证140110号| 广播电视节目制作经营许可证:(京)字第03531号 网络文化经营许可证:京网文(2014)0781-181号