最高法院阿利托大法官罕见政治表态：“美国还没天黑，但是已经快了“_风闻

SNN：当看到美国不敢说人话的时候，有人站出来了。美国最高法院大法官，不成文原则是要独立于政治只负责埋头写案例评析，有人形容为政治上的哑巴。但最近哑巴发声了：在美国总统大选正闹得沸沸扬扬的关键时刻，阿利托大法官周四发言罕见地直接对政治表态，被视为对民主党及左派的不满和喊话。从他的讲话里，我们可以更好地理解美国文化对疫情对自由的理解，他带着强烈的情绪表达了对左派限制人们言论宗教等自由权利、对各地政府和精英用大量行政令替代立法的担忧，核心见4、5部分。 

　　阿利托大法官在在保守派法律组织——联邦党人学会（Federalist Society） National Lawyers Convention年度视频直播上发布了主旨演讲（全视频：林伟雄医生译  SNN有整理）

　　01

　　不要试图扔烂番茄 这是网络

　　希望我的讲话不要被歪曲

　　不过我不报乐观的期望

　　我很荣幸今天能够在网络上为联邦党人学会年度大会致词。通常致辞在现场，并且是在每人酒足饭饱之后进行，大家心情都非常愉悦，容易对讲员有比较好的评价。这一次呢，我是对着镜头在讲。这种感觉很怪异。就好像你今年如果看大联盟的棒球队比赛一样，你会看不到看台上观众，但是这些球队为了让球员感受到一定程度的现场比赛气氛，球队用硬纸板把人像放在座位上，并且用预先录制好的欢呼声。我想过让大会安排者也类似的安排我的演讲，不过这就使得整个场合更加诡异。不管如何，如果你现在想在家里面享受一杯鸡尾酒的话，就请自便。如果你想要向我丢烂番茄的话，也可以，因为损失的只是你自己的电视荧幕。

　　如果你有观看过今年这一个大会的一些节目的话，希望你能够觉得他们不但引发思考，并且有所裨益。这个大会有很多不同的讲员，他们对于我们今天面临的很多问题抱有不同的看法。今天的人们可能是第1次观看联邦党人学会的年会。也许他们听过一些关于联邦党人学会的不实报道。让我先为这个联邦党人学会正名，就是他们是什么，不是什么，而且为什么我多年来一直是会员。

　　联邦党人学会不是什么? 它不是一个发声代言机构。与其他的律师协会不一样，联邦党人学会在各种事情上不持任何立场。他们不会去国会游说，他们不会提议任何具体的法律，他们也不会向最高法院或任何一个法院来呈文。联邦党人学会召开像今天这样的会议，在会议上公开，文明地讨论和争论有争议的议题。

　　多数参加的人都是保守主义者，他们希望能够保护一个法治社会。会员可能对于很多重要的议题持彼此相反的意见。协会在1980年在开始进入进入法学院，现在在大约200个法学院有分会。最好的法学院的校长都向我们团体鼓励公开文明的辩论表示赞赏。另外一位高法大法官卡根就是其中一个例子。在法学院做院长的时候，她曾经在联邦党人学会的一次会议上讲话，他这样说，我爱联邦党人学会，当听到一阵掌声以后，他又再说了一遍，我爱联邦党人学会，但我们并不是同道人。她的话显现出了我们宪法所维护的言论自由，我们也必须继续维护它。在我们面对的重要议题上，我必我们必须允许与我们不同观点的人说出他们要说的话。不幸的是对于这种反对观点的容忍已经是凤毛麟角。我在与那些法学院毕业生交谈的时候，发现现在对于那些与法学院的主旨思想相左的意见，越来越使他们受到他人的攻击。在这样的情况下，继续在法学院里面有像我们今天这样的联邦党人学会主办的演讲，殊为重要。

　　反对者们已经在企图禁止法官参与联邦党人学会。他们成功的话，他们下一步就是禁止法官在联邦党人学会在大学校园或法学院所举行的讲座上做主旨发言。有4位上诉法院的法官写信表达了反对那些希望禁止法官参与联邦主义者协会的人的意见。这封信的签名者，包括超过200名法官。因此这个禁令暂时没有实行，我们应当对这参与签名的200多位法官表示感谢。

　　今年这个大会的主题是在疫情中看宪法保障的权利。这个主题主要是要反映我们今年所经历的新冠疫情带来的过去8个月生活的极大的转变。很显然，这场瘟疫带来了非常大的生命财产的损失。对于依法而治这个原则来说带来什么影响呢？我下面要说的，我希望不被别人歪曲和误解，但是我在华盛顿已经20多年，所以我并不抱太乐观的期待。

　　02

　　疫情对自由剥夺前所未有

　　行政令大量绕行立法机构

　　不能两个标签就剥夺人们自由

　　这场瘟疫带来的对个人自由的剥夺是过去从来没有人想象过会发生的。请注意，我没有淡化这场疫情对于公共健康的危害性。除了几个高法要遇到的官司之外，我也没有要说这些抗疫禁足的行政命令到底是否合法。也没有评论这些禁令是否是利大于弊的政令。因为我不是法令的缔造者。我所要说的仅仅是如下事实，就是我们从来没有经历过对个人自由限制如2020年一样严厉、广泛和漫长的禁令。

　　设想一下，通常被言论自由所保障的现场活动，包括演讲、授课、会议和敬拜活动都不能进行。

　　在复活节教堂居然关闭了，犹太教的会堂在逾越节和赎罪日也没有开放。那些需要把法律诉讼带到法庭上的，或者是需要保护他们宪法所维护的权利的人呢？所有的联邦法庭都好像不存在。能够想象出这种情况吗？这个疫情好像是对我们的宪法进行了一次应激试验。这个试验能够让我们在疫情之前已经有的很多潜在的危险浮出水面。其中有一个就是行政机构绕过立法机构，而通过行政令取代立法功能。

　　20世纪的激进派人士30年代新政奉承者所看到的前景就是，随着20世纪的推进，我们的立法权会从那些思想封闭的民选议员转移到一群被任命的精英专业人士的手上，他们会做出更加科学的政策。

　　他们这个梦想已经相当一个程度上实现了。

　　在过去的每一年里面，这些精英分子通过他们所影响具有非常宽限授权的行政机构发布大量行政命令，远远超过真正通过民选出来的立法机构所拟定的法律。我们在疫情中看到什么？就是那些给予行政者有相当大执行空间的，对自由有覆盖性限制的法令。

　　因为我们在审核内华达州关于新冠法令的案件，所以我就使用内华达州法律举例。内华达州的法律允许行政长官在发现自然或人为的紧急情况或者有巨大灾害的时候，州长可以行使权利，功能，职责以保证或增进该州民众的安全。这一法律给州长有非常大的执行空间，这样的说法一点都不为过。

　　我现在要郑重的说明这一点，我并不是说像这样给执行官有很大个空间的法律不恰当，因为要授权的是很多意想不到的突发性事件。所以我不是要评论这个法律对还是错。我要说的是另外一的观察，就是我们在这个法律和这个法律的应用上，看到一个我们已经在最近很长时间里面看到的一个现象。

　　就是我们的政府越来越偏向让行政机构通过所谓专家或是说科学家，直接制定政策。

还有，把有这么大的执行空间的权力交给行政长官当然会有被滥用的危险。不管你认为这些疫情中的禁足令是对还是不对，我们当然不希望这会成为以后经常被政府使用的工具。

　　另外一点就是什么才是紧急状态或者是巨大灾害。我们不能够让人光用这两个标签放就夺去我们最基本的权利。凡是我们的基本权利被剥夺的时候，最高法院或其他法院就不能不加以注意。

　　法院在这危机中起了什么作用呢？疫情中禁足令是否符合宪法已经被挑战到法院。支持者主要的根据是1901年关于麻省天花疫苗的一个高院判决，这个判决维持了低等法院认为在疫情的情况下，强制性的进行疫苗接种符合宪法。我个人也认为不要让麻省的天花蔓延到全国是一件好事。

　　但是更重要的是我们要对这个案子的解读有全面观。这个案子是针对当时局部发生的一个情况，所以涉及的权利也局限在在一个局部情况的解决，当时的情况并不是如今天所见的禁足令的封闭范围和时间的长度。这个案子并没有给所有的行政长官在紧急情况下可以有毫无限制，不能被审核的行政权。

　　03

　　美国宗教信仰自由已被轻视

　　我们的社会缺少足够的宽容

　　激进派：宗教是歧视的幌子

　　正如同疫情中的这些法令所显示的专家治理这个倾向，围绕着这些法令的诉讼，也显示出对于个人自由的看法的发展倾向。我痛心地说，改变特别明显的是宗教信仰自由。现在在很多场合宗教自由成为了一种被众人轻视的自由。回顾一下1990年代所发生的事情，我们就可以看到变化之大。

　　90年代高等法院审判审理过的一宗法案，很大程度地削弱了第一修正案里面关于自由活出信仰的保护。对此，国会马上作出反应，通过了一个宗教自由恢复法案，以保障宗教自由得到最广泛的保护。这个法案，几乎得到全体支持，在众议院全票通过，参议院也是97:3，当时的克林顿总统非常热情地签署了这项法案。

　　今天，对于宗教自由这样广泛的支持已经不见了。当某些州希望能够有同样的法案来保障宗教自由的时候，他们被以经济杯葛恐吓。

　　我们处理的其他一些案例也可以看到类似的走向。其中一个案例就是有关天主教的一个慈善机构 (Little sisters of the poor)，他们的宗旨是为不分种族和宗教背景的老人提供服务，他们的老人院得到广泛的称誉。但尽管如此，这个慈善机构在过去的十年里面遭受不停的攻击。

　　原因是他们的医疗保险计划不包括计划生育。奥巴马政府对他们不停施压，如果他们不放弃他们的宗教立场，改变他们的保险计划，他们就遭受高额的罚款。这些高额罚款，最终会导致他们关闭他们的老人院。

　　川普政府想通过新的政策来使他们免受困境，但在新泽西(专题)州等近20个州的政府却联手起来抵抗这个政策。去年春天这个慈善机构终于在最高法院以7:2的大比数赢得他们的诉讼。但这个官司又回到了上诉法院，他们陷入不停的官司之中。

　　我们还有另外一个例子，就是华盛顿州政府规定，每一个药房都必须有存货提供医药局所批准的每一种避孕药，包括所谓的事后药。这种药物是在受精卵着床以后再被毁灭。有一个叫做拉尔夫药房的主人是基督徒，他们因为信仰的缘故反对使用这种杀害胎儿的早期流产药。如果有想要寻求这种药物的妇女来到药房，他们通常介绍他们到另外一个药房去。在拉尔夫药房附近有至少30个不同的药房，可以提供这种避孕药。但是华盛顿州觉得这样还不行。他们迫使拉尔夫，要不就提供这种药，要不就别在华盛顿州开业。

　　还有一个例子，那就是科罗拉多州平权委员会怎么样对付那个不愿意专门为同性恋婚礼设计一个特制蛋糕的杰作蛋糕店设计师。克罗拉德州的这个平权委员会负责人这样说，宗教自由在历史上被作为幌子来遮掩很多人的歧视，包括蓄奴，包括犹太人被屠杀，许多这样的例子。

　　你可以很清楚的看到，对于这些现代激进派，宗教自由不是被看为应当受到保护的自由，宗教自由常常只是歧视的幌子，所以不能被容忍，即使在向我刚才所举出例子的那样很多甚至没有受害者的情况下，也不例外。

　　据我所知，这个天主教的慈善机构并没有任何雇员提出过，需要他们的保险计划里面不包含的计划生育。Ralph药房把需要这种避孕药的妇女介绍到其他药房，也并没有让他们失去了什么。在克罗拉多要想得到特制蛋糕的同性婚姻者，也不会因为Jack Philips的立场而得不到这个服务。实际上那个顾客在另外一个蛋糕店得到了免费的蛋糕，而且还有很多知名的厨师免费为他们服务。

　　美国有不少的人不认同天主教慈善机构，拉尔夫药房还有Jack Philips的立场。他们也完全有权利这样做。这并不是问题之所在。

　　问题所在是我们的社会是否足够的宽容，以至能容纳宗教观念很不受大众喜欢的人。在这么多年中，我已经听证过很多宗教上少数派案例。穆斯林的警官留胡子，因为这是他宗教规定。犹太人在监狱里面希望组织一个旧约班。我们刚才上述的几位也必须得到同样的保证。

　　04

　　“美国还没天黑，但是已经快了“

　　“文化战争已结束 保守派输了

　　现在是自由派如何处置他们”

　　哈佛大学的一位法学教授，给我们的国家画出一个不同的前景。他写道，文化战争已经结束，我们赢了，他们输了，现在的问题是我们要怎么处置这些输家。我所解读的是，他觉得更好的解决方法，不是要想怎么样接纳文化战争的输家，而是怎么样用强硬路线解决他们。强硬路线在1945年二战结束以后在日本(专题)和德国好像管用。我们的国家是不是将采用同样的强硬路线呢？引用一句诺贝尔获奖者的话，现在还没天黑，但是已经快了。

　　用这场瘟疫给我们带来的视角，再审视一下我们的环境。

　　在过去的夏天，最高法院收到两个案例是关于敬拜场所在抗疫封城令中被不正当的歧视。一个来自加州(专题)，一个来自内华达。在两个案例中，法院都允许歧视继续进行。给出的唯一理由就是我们应该把决定权交回给州长，因为他们有职责保障人民健康。回顾一下我们这样不去干预，对于内华达造成什么影响。在经济重启过程，内华达州就允许赌场开门接待50%容量的客人。由于很多赌场都非常巨大，50%容量的话，可以容纳非常多人。

　　州长不但是允许他们开张，并且他特意的向各地发出邀请，让他们来内华达州消费。所以如果你到内华达州的话，你可以去赌博，可以喝酒，可以去看秀，但是有一件事情你不能做。

　　如果你是想要去崇拜，而且你是第51个人，那对不起，你来晚了。所有的敬拜场所都只能够接待最多50个人。不管这个崇拜的会场有多大，不管你是不是在里面能够保持6尺以上的社交距离，或者是戴着口罩。也不管这个建筑物是否在崇拜之前或之后都已经有清洁消毒。所以州长给大家的信息是这样的，不要再去想去崇拜了，还是去赌场吧。

　　其实要决定是否应该干预这样的决定应该是很容易的决定。看一看我们的宪法。我们可以看见在意义修正案里面关于可以保护自由行使信仰的那一段。但是你不会看到有关于保障赌场的老虎机，扑克牌等等的条款。内华达州根本没有提出任何有效的理由来说明，为什么赌场能够得到比敬拜场所，更优待的待遇。但法庭却选择听任于州长，州长当然就选择支持他们州最大的工业和他们州最大的雇主，这也是他主要的票源。如果这还不能让你确信宗教自由很快就成为第二等的自由的话，那就看看不久之后就送上来的下一个案例吧。

　　在过去药品管理局FDA一直都坚持如果一个妇女如果要用堕胎药的话，她必须要去诊所来拿到这个药，原因是她必须亲自听到关于这个药的一些详细的说明。这一个规定是2000年的时候就已经采纳的了，一直都没有被废除。但一个星期前在马利兰州的一个法官下一条法令，不允许药品管理局在全国范围内任何一个地方执行这一条规定，他说如果这条规定执行的话，就会干扰了一个妇女进行流产的权利。

　　他说因为有些担心会得到新冠的人，不敢离开家，所以就不能够亲自到诊所去。当这个法官发布这条喻令的时候，马里兰州长好像已经得到他的公共卫生顾问提议开放了州里面很多的设施，他认为去健身房，美发廊等等这些场所都是安全的。如果应该放权决定的话，那当然关于药品安全的权应该放给药品管理局。但这一次的情况所牵涉到的是堕胎的权利，而不是宗教崇拜的权利，而堕胎的权利是一个更重要的权利。

　　05

　　美国言论自由遭限

　　以前的美国只有几个词不能说

　　现在怕是几百个词不能说

　　婚姻说“一男一女结合”是歧视

　　我们社会正在失去的并不仅仅是宗教的自由。言论自由也遭到很大的限制，特别是在新冠的时候。言论限制主要是针对说话人所持的观点。即使是在新冠之前，那些表达不被主流所接受的观点已经在受到打压。这种打压的进展速度也很令人震惊，我们可以比较一下，1972年有一个以及演员，他的一个节目叫做电视上你不能说的7个词。

　　今天你在电视上或者电影里面所看到的节目，可能都是充斥着72年所不能说的7个词。但今天我们会很容易就列出一系列在大学里面的学生，教授，或者在大公司的雇员，不能说出来的话。但是这个列表恐怕就不止7个，而是70个7了。我不会列出所有的，但是有一个我在已经发表的法庭意见上表达过，所以我把它说出来。今天你不能再说婚姻是一男一女的结合。但这是直到不久之前大多数美国人的认同的观点，而现在这就被当成是歧视者。

　　其实在高法相关案例的判决之后，我们就不需要对这个态度惊讶，当时我就已经看到高法这个决定会带来什么影响。说到有这种传统观念的人，也许在家里面可以低声的说出他们的想法，但如果他在公众场合说出的话，他很可能就会被政府，被学校，或者被雇主视为一个仇恨歧视者，并且应当以歧视者的待遇对待他。我们看到现在所发生的正是这样。我们高法所面临的一个挑战就是如何保障言论的自由。虽然这个自由好像在某些圈子里面正逐渐失去光环，但是我们的责任是要保证言论自由不会变成次等的自由。

　　06

　　一个美国拥枪权案例

　　有参议员居然警告重组最高法院

　　国会没有权利干涉司法部门

　　当然有些人现在已经认为第二修正案的拥枪权是次等权利。在经过很长的时间没有审理关于第二修正案的案例之后，去年我们终于接受了一案例。

　　这个案例是关于纽约(专题)市的一个政府的规章。纽约政府为那些希望在家里面有枪作为自卫之用的守法居民设置了很多障碍。第二修正案确实是保障了这个权利。我们也普遍同意，如果一个公民在家里面有枪的话，他应该知道怎么样安全使用。要保证有正确使用枪支的技巧，就必须能够定期的去射击场训练。

　　纽约市的规章使得这个成为非常困难，因为它不允许城市的居民拿着枪到城市以外去训练， 而在市区里面只有7个射击场。其中6个还是只能够会员使用。在市区以外有不少的射击场，为什么市民就不能够到市区以外去射击呢？市政府其实并没有一个很好的解释。但是依然坚持这一条规章，并且下等法院和上诉法院都支持市政府。

　　但当我们说接受审理这件案子之后，市政府马上改变了态度。说他们取消了这个规章，并且说取消这个规章并没有危害到城市的安全。他们用来取代这个旧的规章的新规章比较含糊，但是并没有让枪械拥有者得到他们需要的权益。市政府就在我们正式收到双方文件和辩论之前就请求我们不要再审理这些案子。

　　当我们坚持审理的时候，市政府很生气。他们就通过一些参议员来是攻击我们说最高法院是一个非常糟糕的机构，五名参议会民主党议员提交的意见中说应该鼓励纽约有更大作为。他们认为最高院已处于病态，如不自行整改，便应进行所谓的重构。收到了参议员的这个警告之后最高法院妥协了，说因为市政府的规章已经改了，因此这个案子不再具有效力，而最高法院也没有做出任何关于第二修正案拥枪权的任何评论。

　　我们其中三个大法官对此提出抗议，但没有效果。我并不是说法院的最后判决是由于这一位参议员所写的恐吓信。但我恐怕我们的做法会让这些企图恐吓最高法院的参议员或其他人有这样的想法。

　　这一件事情让我们可以预见到最高法院，今后将来会碰到的问题，我们不能够熟视无睹。这位参议员的恐吓确实非同寻常，我可以说一大堆关于他如何不顾专业政客的体面等等的批评，但实际上里面有一个更重要的东西。这个恐吓是对于宪法和依法而治的这个原则的攻击。

　　让我们再回到我们基础那里。最高法院是根据宪法设定的，而不是被立法机构设定的。依据宪法，我们行使在宪法里面规定的司法权利。就像我们没有权利立法一样，国会也没有权利干涉司法部门的工作。我们的工作就是根据法律来判断案件，仅此而已。

　　因此任何人包括国会议员，如果不是以法律为依据做辩论的话，就没有任何立场影响最高法院的判定。这位参议员所做的事情通常是发生在那些以权作为依据，而不是以法律作为依据的国家。

　　有一位在那样的国家的最高法院的法官曾经跟我讲过，在他们判断一件对于当权者非常重要的案例。他看到窗外有一辆坦克，坦克的炮对准了最高法院。这个场面非常清楚的表达一个信息，就是如果你们的判决不对的话，可能最高法院就要被重组了。那样是非常粗暴的恐吓。不论是粗暴还是比较文雅的恐吓都是不能接受的。

　　法官有一个职责，他们不能就原则妥协，也不能为他们背离原则所做的事情找任何借口。我有信心，我们这个最高法院在今后的数年里面不会这样做。

　　当我们回顾美国的司法系统的历史时，会发现在历史上有很多大法官，他们非常忠诚不屈地捍卫原则。联邦主义者协会人都很熟悉的，其中一位就是Scalia 大法官。他是是联邦党人学会能够成立的先驱。他在法律界多年的贡献也影响造就了很多年轻的法学生和律师。他在这个领域留下极深的烙印，也许他留下最重要的遗产就是他坚持释法的时候所根据的两个原则。

　　原意解释，也就是解释宪法的时候，是根据宪法被接纳的时候所写下的字句当时表达的意义，和字面解释，基本上就是对于具体的法律按原意解释。要知道Scalia大法官的影响，我们可以看看Kagan大法官所说的这句话, 我们现在都是原意解释主义者，也都是字面解释主义者。

　　这意味着什么呢？这并不意味着所有的法官解释宪法和法律的时候都有共同的见解，而是说所有的法官都认同，我们应该用同样的框架去企图解释。在将来，所有敬仰Scalia大法官的这些后来人都会在这个框架下探讨这位大法官会怎么样看具体的问题。我在这里不想再太多的阐述，但是我现在已经开始看到有些人对大法官的这些理论做了错误的解释。我希望今后能够与这些观点的持有者有友善，但是深入的讨论。

　　当我们今天讨论的时候，我们看到新冠的疫情，把我们宪法中所存在的一些裂痕暴露出来。

　　我也批评了最高法院的某些的判决。但我不希望留给你们一个错误的印象。事实上，我在最高法院的15年里面，最高法院做了很多很好的工作来保障言论自由，宗教自由和限制政府必须在宪法的框架下行使权力。

　　这些都是很重要的工作，但最终，司法机构能够做的捍卫宪法，保障公民的各种自由的也有限。有句话说，自由活在每一个人的心中，如果在人心中的自由已经死去，那么任何宪法，法律，法庭都无法使之复活。

　　对所有美国人来说，站起来捍卫宪法和自己的自由是你们前面的艰巨任务。

　　联邦党人学会简介：联邦党人法律和公共政策研究学会（英语：The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies），简称为联邦党人学会（ Federalist Society），是一个由保守派和自由主义者组成的组织。该组织声称依据文本主义或原旨主义来寻求改革现行的美国法律。它成立于1982年，是全美最具影响力的法律组织之一。联邦党人学会成立于耶鲁大学，是一个保守派法律精英组织。该学会通过从法律教育初期就介入保守派学生的职业规划、通过内部活动强化对保守派意识形态的高度认同、通过社会各个领域活跃分子之间人脉上的互相扶持，造就了美国联邦最高法院当下五位保守派大法官皆出身该学会的盛况。川普所任命的三名最高法院大法官便为该研究学会便推举，川普曾公开对学会予以感谢。

　　附演讲英文全文：

　　First, he discussed how strange it is to deliver this address remotely.

　　第1节 阿利托以幽默的口吻表达了视频直播演讲的奇怪感受。

　　Thank you, Dean, I’m very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to all of you who are attending the Federalist society’s annual lawyers convention via the internet. I’ve given the conventions keynote speech several times before, but today is quite different. On all those occasions, I spoke to a live audience at the big convention dinner. By the time I got up to speak, there had been a cocktail hour, everybody had had the chance to enjoy a glass of wine or two with dinner, and people were in a good mood. Those are optimal circumstances for a speaker, they tend to make the audience a lot more forgiving in its assessment of the speech. Today, I’m talking to a camera, and that feels really strange. And I wondered if anything could be done to alleviate that. If any of you watched any regular season baseball games this year, you will have seen that there were no real people in attendance. But in an effort to make the atmosphere seem a bit more normal, teams placed cardboard cutouts of fans in the seats, and piped in recorded Cheers. I thought for a moment about asking the organizers of the convention to do something like that. But that would only make the setting more surreal. However, if any of you would like to enjoy a beverage in the comfort of your homes, I hope you will feel free to do so. And on the other hand, if any of you feel the urge to throw Rotten Tomatoes, go right ahead, you will only mess up your own screen. If you have watched some of the events of this year’s convention, I hope you found them informative and thought provoking. As in the past, they have featured speakers with a variety of views on important topics.

　　Second, he discussed the history of the Federalist Society.

　　第2节 介绍联邦党人学会的历史

　　Some of those watching tonight may be new to Federalist Society events, and may have heard a lot of misinformation about the society. So let me say a word at the outset about what the society is, what it is not, and why I have been a member for many years. Let me start with what it is not. It is not an advocacy group. Unlike other bar groups, it does not take a position on any issue. It doesn’t propose legislation or lobby or testify before Congress, or file briefs in the supreme court or any other court. It holds events like this convention at which issues are debated and discussed openly and civilly. Anybody can join the society, and anybody can attend events like this convention.

　　Most members of the society are conservative in the sense that they want to conserve our Constitution and the rule of law. But members members disagree about many important things.

　　The society started in law schools in the 1980s and now has 200 Law School chapters. And the best law school Deans have expressed appreciation of the society’s contribution to free and open debate. My colleague, Elena Kagan is a prime example. When she was the Dean of Harvard Law School, she spoke at a Federalist Society event and began with these words. I love the Federalist Society. After some applause, she repeat it. I love the Federalist Society, pause. But you are not my people. That is a true expression of the freedom of speech that our Constitution guarantees and that we need to preserve. We should all welcome rational civil speech on important subjects, even if we do not agree with what the speaker has to say.

　　Third, he discussed increased hostility towards FedSoc, including the proposed rule that would have prevented judges from being members of FedSoc.

　　第3节 讨论了外界对联邦党人学会的敌意态度以及要求禁止法官参会的建议

　　Unfortunately, tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply in many law schools, and in the broader academic community. When I speak with recent law school graduates, what I hear over and over is that they face harassment and retaliation if they say anything that departs from the law school orthodoxy. Under these circumstances, Federalist Society law school events are more important than ever. I will have more to say about freedom of speech later, but if this point I want to express appreciation to the many judges and lawyers who stood up to an attempt to hobble the debate that the Federalist Society Foster’s move was afoot to bar federal judges from membership in the society. And if that had succeeded, the next logical step would have been to forbid them from speaking at law school events, and other events sponsored by the society. Four Court of Appeals judges, Amul Thapar, Andy Oldham, Bill Pryor, and Greg Katsas, prepared a letter that devastated the arguments of those who wanted to ban membership. The letter was signed by more than 200 judges, including judges appointed by every president, going back to President Ford. And at least for now, the proposal is on hold, we should all express our thanks to these defenders of free speech.

　　Fourth, he discussed how COVID-19 has affected our current legal order.

　　第4节，讨论了新冠病毒对现行法律秩序的冲击

　　The topic of this year’s convention is the rule of law and the current crisis. And I take it that the title is intended primarily to refer to the COVID-19 crisis that has transformed life for the past eight months. The pandemic has obviously taken a heavy human toll, thousands dead, many more hospitalized, millions on employed the dreams of many small business owners dashed. But what has it meant for the rule of law,

　　I’m now going to say something that I hope will not be twisted or misunderstood. But I have spent more than 20 years in Washington, so I’m not overly optimistic. In any event, here goes. The pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty. Now, notice what I am not saying or even implying, I am not diminishing the severity of the viruses threat to public health. And putting aside what I will say shortly about a few Supreme Court cases, I’m not saying anything about the legality of COVID restrictions. Nor am I saying anything about whether any of these restrictions represent good public policy. I’m a judge, not a policymaker. All that i’m saying is this. And I think it is an indisputable statement of fact, we have never before seen restrictions as severe, extensive and prolonged as those experienced, for most of 2020.

　　Think of all the live events that would otherwise be protected by the right to freedom of speech, live speeches, conferences, lectures, meetings, think of worship services, churches closed on Easter Sunday, synagogues closed for Passover on Yom Kippur War. Think about access to the courts, or the constitutional right to a speedy trial. trials in federal courts have virtually disappeared in many places who could have imagined that the COVID crisis has served as a sort of constitutional stress test. And in doing so it has highlighted disturbing trends that were already present before the virus struck.

　　Fifth, he discussed the broad delegation to government to deal with “emergencies” and “rule by experts.”

　　第5节 讨论充分授权政府应对危机以及专业治理

　　One of these is the dominance of lawmaking by executive Fiat rather than legislation. The vision of early 20th century progressives and the new dealers of the 1930s was the policymaking would shift from narrow minded elected legislators, to an elite group of appointed experts in a word, the policymaking would become more scientific. That dream has been realized to a large extent. Every year administrative agencies acting under broad delegations of authority churn out huge volumes of regulations that dwarfs the statutes enacted by the people’s elected representatives. And what have we seen in the pandemic sweeping restrictions imposed for the most part, under statutes that confer enormous executive discretion?.

　　We had a covid related case from Nevada. So I will take the Nevada law as an example.

　　Under that law, if the governor finds that there is, quote, a natural technological or manmade emergency, or disaster of major proportions, the governor can perform and exercise such functions, powers and duties as are necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian population. To say that this provision confers broad discretion would be an understatement.

　　Now, again, let me be clear, I’m not disputing that broad wording may be appropriate in statutes designed to address a wide range of emergencies, the nature of which may be hard to anticipate, and I’m not passing judgment on this particular issue. I want to make two different points.

　　First, what we see in this statute, and and what was done under it is a particularly developed example of where the law in general has been going for some time, in the direction of government by executive officials, who were thought to implement policies based on expertise. And in the purest form, scientific expertise.

　　Second, laws giving an official so much discretion can of course, be abused. And whatever one may think about the COVID restrictions, we surely don’t want them to become a recurring feature after the pandemic has passed. All sorts of things can be called an emergency or disaster of major proportions. Simply slapping on that label cannot provide the ground for abrogating our most fundamental rights. And whenever fundamental rights are restricted, the Supreme Court and other courts cannot close their eyes.

　　Sixth, he turns to Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

　　第六节 谈论Jacobson v. Massachusetts案

　　So what are the courts doing in this crisis, when the constitutionality of COVID restrictions has been challenged in court, the leading authority cited in their defense is a 1905 Supreme Court decision called Jacobson versus Massachusetts. The case concerned an outbreak of smallpox in Cambridge, and the Court upheld the constitutionality of an ordinance that required vaccinations to prevent the disease from spreading. Now I’m all in favor of preventing dangerous things from issuing out of Cambridge and infecting the rest of the country and the world. It would be good if what originates in Cambridge stayed in Cambridge. But to return to the serious point, it’s important to keep Jacobson in perspective, its primary holding rejected a substantive due process challenge to a local measure that targeted a problem of limited scope. It did not involve sweeping restrictions imposed across the country for an extended period. And it does not mean that whenever there is an emergency, executive officials have unlimited unreviewable discretion.

　　Seventh, he turned to how COVID-19 has affected religious liberty.

　　第7节 再次谈及新冠肺炎对宗教自由的影响

　　Just as the COVID restrictions have highlighted the movement toward rule by experts, litigation about those restrictions, has pointed up emerging trends in the assessment of individual rights. This is especially evident with respect to religious liberty. It pains me to say this, but in certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored, right. And that marks a surprising turn of events. Consider where things stood in the 1990s. And to me, at least that does not seem like the Jurassic age. When a Supreme Court decision called employment division versus Smith, cut back sharply on the protection provided by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Congress was quick to respond. It passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). To ensure broad protection for religious liberty. The law had almost universal support. In the house, the vote was unanimous. In the Senate, it was merely 97 to three, and the bill was enthusiastically signed by President Clinton today that widespread support has vanished. When states have considered or gone ahead and adopted their own versions of reference. They have been threatened with punishing economic boycotts.

　　Eighth, he discussed the Little Sisters of the Poor case.

　　第8节 讨论 Little Sisters of the Poor案

　　Some of our cases illustrate this same trend. Take the protracted campaign against the Little Sisters of the Poor in order of Catholic nuns, the Little Sisters or women who have dedicated their lives to caring for the elderly, poor, regardless of religion. They run homes that have one high praise. Here’s some of the testimonials filed in our court by residents of their homes. The Little Sisters, quote, do everything to make us happy. I feel I’m part of the family and that’s a great feeling. They will keep you alive 10 years longer than anyplace else because they love you. Carol hassel in a nutshell, I would say this about the Little Sisters, a little bit of heaven fell from the sky one day and landed in my apartment.

　　Despite this inspiring work, the little sisters have been under unrelenting attack for the better part of a decade. Why because they refused to allow their health insurance plan to provide contraceptives to their employees. For that they were targeted by the prior administration. If they did not knuckle under and violate a tenet of their faith. They face crippling fines, fines that would likely have forced them to shut down their homes.

　　The current administration tried to prevent that by adopting a new rule. But the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey supported by 17, under other states, challenged that new rule. Last spring, the Little Sisters won their most recent battle in the Supreme Court, I should add by a vote of seven to two, but the case was sent back to the Court of Appeals. And the Little Sisters legal fight goes on and on.

　　Ninth, he discussed the Ralph’s Pharmacy case:

　　第9节 讨论 Ralph’s Pharmacy案

　　Here’s another example from our cases, the state of Washington adopted a rule requiring every pharmacy to carry every form of contraceptive approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including so called morning after pills, which destroy an embryo after fertilization. A pharmacy called Ralph’s was owned by a Christian family opposed to abortion, they refuse to carry abortifacients. If a woman came to the store with a prescription for such a drug, the pharmacy referred her to a nearby store that was happy to provide it. And there were 30 such stores within five miles of Ralph’s. But to the state of Washington, that was not good enough, Ralph had to provide the drugs itself or get out of the state.

　　Tenth, he turned to Masterpiece Cakeshop.

　　第10节  谈及Masterpiece Cakeshop案

　　One more example, consider what a member of the Colorado Human Rights Commission said to jack Phillips, the owner of the now notorious masterpiece cake shop, when he refused to create a cake celebrating a same sex wedding. She said that freedom of religion had been used, quote, to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust, we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination, you can easily see the point. For many today, religious liberty is not a cherished freedom. It’s often just an excuse for bigotry, and it can’t be tolerated, even when there is no evidence that anybody has been harmed.

　　And the cases I just mentioned, illustrate the point. As far as I’m aware, not one employee of the Little Sisters has come forward and demanded contraceptives under the Little Sisters plan. There was no risk that Ralph’s referral practice would have deprived any woman of the drugs she sought, and no reason to think the jack Phillips is stand would deprive any same sex couple of a wedding cake. The couple that came to his shop was given a free cake by another bakery, and celebrity chefs have jumped to the couple’s defense.

　　A great many Americans disagree sometimes quite strongly with the religious beliefs of the Little Sisters, the owners of Ralph’s and jack Phillips and of course they have a perfect right to do so. That is not the question. The question we face is whether our society will be inclusive enough to tolerate people with unpopular religious beliefs. Over the years, I have sat on cases involving the rights of many religious minorities, Muslim police officers whose religion required them to have beards, a Native American who wanted to keep a bear for religious services. A Jewish prisoner who tried to organize a Torah study group. The Little Sisters Ralph’s and jack Phillips deserve no less protection.

　　Eleventh, he gave Mark Tushnet a shoutout.

　　第10节 致谢Mark Tushnet

　　A Harvard Law School Professor provided a different vision of a future America. He candidly wrote, quote, the culture wars are over, they lost we won. The question now is how to deal with the losers in the culture wars. My own judgment is the taking a hard line you lost live with it is better than trying to accommodate the losers, taking a hard line seem to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945. Is our country going to follow that course? To quote a popular Nobel laureate? It’s not dark yet, but it’s getting there. So let’s look at what we’ve seen during the pandemic.

　　Twelfth, Justice Alito turned to Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak

　　第12节，谈论Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak案

　　Over the summer, the Supreme Court received two applications to stay COVID restrictions that blatantly discriminated against houses of worship, one from California, one from Nevada.

　　In both cases, the court allowed the discrimination to stand. The only justification given was that we should defer to the judgment of the governors because they have the responsibility to safeguard the public health. Consider what that deference meant in the Nevada case. After initially closing the state’s casinos for a time the governor opened them up and allowed them to admit admit 50% of their normal occupancy. And since many casinos are enormous, that is a lot of people.

　　And not only did the governor open up the casinos, he made a point of an inviting people from all over the country to visit the state.

　　So if you go to Nevada, you can gamble, drank and attend all sorts of shows. But here’s what you can’t do. If you want to worship and you’re the 51st person in line, sorry, you are out of luck. houses of worship are limited to 50 attendees. The size of the building doesn’t matter. Nor does it matter if you wear a mask and keep more than six feet away from everybody else. And it doesn’t matter if the building is carefully sanitized before and after a service. The state’s messages this forget about worship and head for the slot machines, or maybe a Cirque du Soleil show.

　　Now deciding whether to allow this disparate treatment should not have been a very tough call. take a quick look at the Constitution. You will see the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment which protects religious liberty, you will not find a craps clause or a blackjack clause or a slot machine clause. Nevada was unable to provide any plausible justification for treating casinos more favorably than houses of worship. But the court nevertheless deferred to the governor’s judgment, which just so happened to favor the state’s biggest industry and the many voters it employs.

　　Thirteenth, he talked about FDA v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

　　第13节 谈论FDA v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists案

　　If what I have said so far does not convince you that religious liberty is in danger of becoming a second class right, consider a case that came shortly after the Nevada case. The FDA has long had a role providing that a woman who wants a medication abortion must go to a clinic to pick up the drug. The idea is that it’s important for the woman to receive instruction about the drug at that time. The rule was first adopted in 2000. And it has been kept on the books ever since. A few weeks ago, however, a federal district judge in Maryland issued an order prohibiting the FDA from enforcing this drug any place in the country. Enforcement he found would interfere with the right of women to get abortions. Why? Because some women fearful of contracting covid if they left their homes, would hesitate about making the trip to a clinic. Now when the judge made this decision, the governor of Maryland presumably advised by public health experts had apparently concluded that Marylanders could safely engage in all sorts of activities outside the home, such as visiting an indoor exercise facility, a hair or nail salon and the state’s casinos. If deference was appropriate in the California and Nevada cases, then surely we should have differed to the federal Food and Drug Administration on an issue of drug safety. But no, in this instance, the writing question was the abortion right not the right to religious liberty, and the abortion right prevailed.

　　Fourteenth, he turned to the Freedom of Speech

　　第14节 讨论言论自由

　　The rights of the free exercise of religion is not the only ones cherished freedom that is falling in the estimation of some segments of the population. Support for freedom of speech is also in danger. And COVID rules have restricted speech in unprecedented ways. As I mentioned, attendance at speeches, lectures, conferences, conventions, rallies, and other similar events has been banned or limited. And some of these restrictions are alleged to have included discrimination based on the viewpoint of the speaker.

　　Even before the pandemic, there was growing hostility to the expression of unfashionable views. And that too, was the surprising development. Here’s a marker in 1972, the comedian George Carlin began to perform a routine called the seven words you can’t say on TV. Today, you can see shows on your TV screen in which the dialog appears at time to consist almost entirely of those words. Carlin’s list seems like a quaint relic, but it would be easy to put together a new list called things you can’t say if you’re a student or professor at a college or university or an employee of many big corporations. And there wouldn’t be just seven items on that list. 70 times seven would be closer to the mark. I won’t go down the list, but I’ll mention one that I’ve discussed in a published opinion. You can’t say that marriage is the union between one man and one woman. Until very recently, that’s what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now it’s considered bigotry.

　　That this would happen after our decision in Obergefell should not have come as a surprise. Yes, the opinion of the court included words meant to calm the fears of those who claim to traditional views on marriage. But I could say and so did the other justices in dissent, where the decision would lead wrote the following. I assume that those who claim to old beliefs will be able able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes. But if they repeat those of us in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots, and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools. That is just what is coming to pass. One of the great challenges for the Supreme Court going forward will be to protect freedom of speech.

中文来自：萧参客  英文附后：涉外律师圈。