紐時賞析／總統不應凌駕法律之上 川普國會暴亂豁免權案引大法官熱議

川普支持者穿着美国独立战争时期风格的服饰，参加川普的造势场合。（纽约时报）

Will the Justices Hold Presidents to Account?

大法官热议川普豁免权 200年前就有解

Did the American Revolution actually happen? If it did, was it a good thing?

美国独立革命真的发生过吗？若是真的，那是件好事吗？

This is more or less what Justice Elena Kagan seemed to be wondering during the oral arguments in Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 immunity case at the Supreme Court on Thursday morning.

美国最高法院周四早上针对前总统川普1月6日国会暴乱豁免权案进行言词辩论时，这似乎或多或少是大法官凯根所疑惑的问题。

“Wasn’t the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law?” she asked.

她问：「重点不就是总统并非君主，且总统不应凌驾法律之上吗？」

Like her, I had assumed those questions were answered decisively in the affirmative more than 200 years ago. But now, after almost three hours of circuitous debate and bizarre hypotheticals at the Supreme Court, I’m not so sure.

和凯根一样，我也曾认为，这些问题200多年前就已断然获得肯定回答。但现在，经过最高法院近三小时迂回的辩论和怪异的假设，我不太确定。

The right-wing justices seemed thoroughly uninterested in the case before them, which involves a violent insurrection that was led by a sitting president who is seeking to return to office in a matter of months. Instead, they spent the morning and early afternoon appearing to be more worried that prosecuting Trump could risk future malicious prosecutions of former presidents by their political rivals. And they tried to draw a distinction between official acts, for which a president might have immunity from prosecution, and private acts, for which no immunity would apply.

右派大法官似乎对面前这起案件非常不感兴趣，该案涉及由一个现任总统所领导的暴力叛乱，此人正寻求数月内重返白宫。他们整个早上和下午稍早反倒是似乎更担心，起诉川普的风险是未来前总统可能被政敌恶意起诉。他们试图区分官方和私人行动，前者可能享有不被起诉的豁免权，后者不享有豁免权。

The upshot was that a majority of justices appeared prepared to send the case back down to the lower courts for further unnecessary litigation, which would almost certainly eliminate any chance of a trial being held before Election Day.

结果是大多数大法官似乎准备将案件发回下级法院，进一步进行不必要的诉讼，这几乎确定消除审判在选举日前举行的任何机会。

So let’s remember how we got here. The case began last year with special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of the former president on charges of obstruction, fraud and conspiracy relating to his central role in the effort to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election, which resulted in the deadly attack at the U.S. Capitol. This scheme was, by a long shot, the most egregious abuse of authority by any president in history.

所以，让我们回想事情是如何走到这一步。这起案件始于去年，当时特别检察官史密斯起诉这位前总统，指控他妨碍司法、诈欺，以及他在试图推翻2020年大选败选阴谋中的关键角色，这导致美国国会大厦发生致命攻击。无论如何，这项计划是美国史上任何一个总统最令人震惊的滥权行为。

In short, the justice system is doing its job by trying to hold to account a former president for subverting the last election before he runs in the next one. That is a very important job! And yet the right-wing justices are saying, essentially, not so fast — and maybe not at all.

总之，司法体系正尽其职责，试图在一个前总统参加下次选举前，追究他颠复上次选举的责任。这是非常重要的工作！然而，右派大法官基本上在说，不要这么急，也许就别审了。

The federal Jan. 6 trial should have been underway for almost two months by this point. The lower courts, in opinions by judges appointed by both Republicans and Democrats, dispatched this appeal with ease. But the Supreme Court decided to take the case anyway, scheduling it for the final argument day of the term.

1月6日国会暴乱的联邦审判，此时应该已进行快两个月了。下级法院先前依据共和党和民主党任命的法官意见，毫不费力的驳回了上诉。但最高法院仍决定受理此案，并将其排在庭期的最后言词辩论日。

文／Jesse Wegman　译／罗方妤