通過三個判決，了解這位被特朗普“看中”的大法官
Emma Hinchliffe
2020-09-29
美國最高法院大法官露絲?巴德?金斯伯格去世后，白宮正在推進提名人選來填補這個空缺席位。9月25日晚上，特朗普總統提名正在芝加哥第七巡回上訴法院任職的埃米?科尼?巴雷特為最高法院大法官。
巴雷特已經是特朗普的司法提名人。2017年，總統以55票贊成、43票反對的結果任命她擔任現職。作為已故最高法院大法官安東寧?斯卡利亞的前書記員，巴雷特以原旨主義者（originalist）和她的學術生涯而聞名。（注：原旨主義是指應依據制憲者的意圖或者憲法條文的含義來解釋憲法。）
SCOTUS博客展示了一些具體的案例，以及與之相關的裁決和異議。這些信息或將揭示巴雷特會如何在國家最高法院行使她的職權。
印第安納和肯塔基計劃生育公司訴印第安納州衛生部專員等案
這個印第安納州的案件是巴雷特在第七巡回法院任職期間兩次涉裁墮胎問題中的一次。
該訴訟涉及印第安納州的一項法律——禁止女性因性別、種族或殘疾等原因而選擇終止妊娠。舉個例子，按照法律規定，孕婦在得知胎兒患有唐氏綜合癥后，禁止墮胎。
當這個案子送到巴雷特面前時，她的職責是單獨研究法律中關于胎兒遺體處置的問題（其他共和黨司法委任者已經就該法律的其他部分作出了決定，表示反對該立法）。然而，巴雷特補充了一項她本人自發的意見，她寫道：“最高法院的墮胎裁決中，沒有一項認為各州無權阻止為選擇孩子的性別、種族和其他屬性而進行的墮胎?！?/p>
正是這個意見，顯示了巴雷特反墮胎的決心。
多伊訴普渡大學案
據《華盛頓郵報》報道，2019年，在一個由三名女性組成的法官小組中，巴雷特在多伊訴普渡大學一案中做出裁決，“讓被控性侵的學生更容易挑戰其大學對案件的處理”。
該案件涉及一起性侵指控——一名名叫簡?多伊的女子指控一名名叫約翰?多伊的男子性侵。約翰?多伊被大學內部裁定犯有性暴力罪，并被學校開除。約翰就大學開除他并剝奪獎學金一事起訴普渡大學。巴雷特的裁決決定，他的案件應當繼續審理，他可能因為自己的性別而受到歧視——她寫道：“大學官員選擇相信簡是因為她是女人，不相信約翰是因為他是男人?！?/p>
國家婦女法律中心的教育和工作場所正義副總裁埃米麗?馬丁指出，巴雷特最終得出結論：奧巴馬政府要求大學認真對待校園性侵犯，因此，約翰可能會由于他的性別而受到歧視。巴雷特在這件事上發表意見之前，許多保守派活動人士已經對奧巴馬時代對大學的指導意見提出抗議。通過巴雷特在她的論點中所做的聯系，我們可以窺探出她對性別歧視和性侵犯問題的一些見解。
馬丁說：“把對性行為不檢的重視當作對男性的歧視，以性別歧視為劍來刺傷解決性侵犯案件的努力，這是一種糟糕的做法。”
坎特訴巴爾案
2019年，坎特訴巴爾一案涉及持槍權利。瑞基?坎特擁有一家矯形鞋類公司，他因虛假陳述其產品而被判郵件欺詐罪。在那次定罪之后，作為一名重罪犯，坎特被判再無資格擁有槍支。他就這一限制提起訴訟，稱作為一名非暴力重罪犯，這一限制違反了第二修正案賦予他的權利。
多數人反對坎特，但巴雷特不同意。她認為，對重罪犯擁有槍支的限制太過寬泛——一項重罪將使罪犯“有資格被剝奪”第二修正案賦予的權利，而不是說他們會“自動失去”這項權利。她說，非暴力犯罪的定罪不應剝奪公民攜帶武器的權利。
但是，巴雷特提出的這一異議似乎并不意味著她愿意恢復重罪犯的投票權等其他權利。她認為，投票和擔任陪審員是一小部分“有道德的公民”的權利，而擁有槍支的權利應該只根據一個人是否危險而決定是否加以限制。（財富中文網）
編譯：楊二一
美國最高法院大法官露絲?巴德?金斯伯格去世后，白宮正在推進提名人選來填補這個空缺席位。9月25日晚上，特朗普總統提名正在芝加哥第七巡回上訴法院任職的埃米?科尼?巴雷特為最高法院大法官。
巴雷特已經是特朗普的司法提名人。2017年，總統以55票贊成、43票反對的結果任命她擔任現職。作為已故最高法院大法官安東寧?斯卡利亞的前書記員，巴雷特以原旨主義者（originalist）和她的學術生涯而聞名。（注：原旨主義是指應依據制憲者的意圖或者憲法條文的含義來解釋憲法。）
SCOTUS博客展示了一些具體的案例，以及與之相關的裁決和異議。這些信息或將揭示巴雷特會如何在國家最高法院行使她的職權。
印第安納和肯塔基計劃生育公司訴印第安納州衛生部專員等案
這個印第安納州的案件是巴雷特在第七巡回法院任職期間兩次涉裁墮胎問題中的一次。
該訴訟涉及印第安納州的一項法律——禁止女性因性別、種族或殘疾等原因而選擇終止妊娠。舉個例子，按照法律規定，孕婦在得知胎兒患有唐氏綜合癥后，禁止墮胎。
當這個案子送到巴雷特面前時，她的職責是單獨研究法律中關于胎兒遺體處置的問題（其他共和黨司法委任者已經就該法律的其他部分作出了決定，表示反對該立法）。然而，巴雷特補充了一項她本人自發的意見，她寫道：“最高法院的墮胎裁決中，沒有一項認為各州無權阻止為選擇孩子的性別、種族和其他屬性而進行的墮胎?！?/p>
正是這個意見，顯示了巴雷特反墮胎的決心。
多伊訴普渡大學案
據《華盛頓郵報》報道，2019年，在一個由三名女性組成的法官小組中，巴雷特在多伊訴普渡大學一案中做出裁決，“讓被控性侵的學生更容易挑戰其大學對案件的處理”。
該案件涉及一起性侵指控——一名名叫簡?多伊的女子指控一名名叫約翰?多伊的男子性侵。約翰?多伊被大學內部裁定犯有性暴力罪，并被學校開除。約翰就大學開除他并剝奪獎學金一事起訴普渡大學。巴雷特的裁決決定，他的案件應當繼續審理，他可能因為自己的性別而受到歧視——她寫道：“大學官員選擇相信簡是因為她是女人，不相信約翰是因為他是男人。”
國家婦女法律中心的教育和工作場所正義副總裁埃米麗?馬丁指出，巴雷特最終得出結論：奧巴馬政府要求大學認真對待校園性侵犯，因此，約翰可能會由于他的性別而受到歧視。巴雷特在這件事上發表意見之前，許多保守派活動人士已經對奧巴馬時代對大學的指導意見提出抗議。通過巴雷特在她的論點中所做的聯系，我們可以窺探出她對性別歧視和性侵犯問題的一些見解。
馬丁說：“把對性行為不檢的重視當作對男性的歧視，以性別歧視為劍來刺傷解決性侵犯案件的努力，這是一種糟糕的做法?！?/p>
坎特訴巴爾案
2019年，坎特訴巴爾一案涉及持槍權利。瑞基?坎特擁有一家矯形鞋類公司，他因虛假陳述其產品而被判郵件欺詐罪。在那次定罪之后，作為一名重罪犯，坎特被判再無資格擁有槍支。他就這一限制提起訴訟，稱作為一名非暴力重罪犯，這一限制違反了第二修正案賦予他的權利。
多數人反對坎特，但巴雷特不同意。她認為，對重罪犯擁有槍支的限制太過寬泛——一項重罪將使罪犯“有資格被剝奪”第二修正案賦予的權利，而不是說他們會“自動失去”這項權利。她說，非暴力犯罪的定罪不應剝奪公民攜帶武器的權利。
但是，巴雷特提出的這一異議似乎并不意味著她愿意恢復重罪犯的投票權等其他權利。她認為，投票和擔任陪審員是一小部分“有道德的公民”的權利，而擁有槍支的權利應該只根據一個人是否危險而決定是否加以限制。（財富中文網）
編譯：楊二一
After the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the White House is moving ahead with a nominee to fill the open seat. On September 25 night, President Trump nominated to the Supreme Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago.
Coney Barrett is already a Trump judicial nominee; the President appointed her to her current seat in 2017 with a 55-43 Senate confirmation vote. A former clerk for late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Coney Barrett is known as an originalist and for her career in academia.
A few specific cases—and her rulings and dissents related to them, as highlighted by SCOTUS Blog—also shed light on how Coney Barrett would approach her purview on the nation's highest bench.
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. v. Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health, et al.
This case, colloquially referred to as Indiana, is one of two times the issue of abortion has come before Coney Barrett during her tenure on the 7th circuit.
The suit concerned an Indiana law that barred abortions performed for reasons related to sex, race, or disability—like if a woman chose to end a pregnancy after learning her fetus had Down syndrome.
When the case made its way in front of Coney Barrett, she was being asked to consider a separate portion of the law concerning the disposal of fetal remains (other Republican judicial appointees had decided other questions about the law, coming down in opposition to the legislation). However, Coney Barrett chose to add an additional unsolicited opinion, writing that "none of the Court’s abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent abortions designed to choose the sex, race, and other attributes of children.”
The unprompted opinion suggests the strength of Coney Barrett's opposition to abortion rights.
Doe v. Purdue University
On a three-woman panel of judges, Coney Barrett in 2019 wrote a ruling in Doe v. Purdue University that "made it easier for students accused of sexual assault to challenge universities’ handling of their cases," reports the Washington Post.
The case considered a lawsuit over a sexual assault allegation in which a woman identified as Jane Doe accused a man identified as John Doe of assault; John Doe had been found guilty of sexual violence by an internal university ruling and was expelled from the school. John Doe sued Purdue over his expulsion and the loss of his scholarship; Coney Barrett's ruling determined that his case could move forward and that he may have been discriminated against because of his gender. "It is plausible that [university officials] chose to believe Jane because she is a woman and to disbelieve John because he is a man," the judge wrote.
Coney Barrett came to the conclusion that John Doe could have been discriminated against because of his gender because of the Obama Administration's guidance instructing universities to take sexual assault on campus seriously, according to Emily Martin, VP for education and workplace justice at the National Women's Law Center; by the time of Coney Barrett's opinion in this case, many conservative activists had objected to that Obama-era guidance. The connection Coney Barrett makes in her argument provides some insight into how she views issues of both gender discrimination and sexual assault.
"The idea that taking sexual misconduct seriously suggests sex discrimination against men," Martin says, "is a disturbing way of using the language of sex discrimination as a sword against efforts to address sexual assault."
Kanter v. Barr
The 2019 case Kanter v. Barr concerned gun rights. Rickey Kanter, who owned an orthopedic footwear company, was convicted of mail fraud over false representation of his product. After that conviction, as a felon, he was deemed ineligible to own a gun; he sued over that limitation, arguing that as a non-violent felon the restriction violated his Second Amendment rights.
The majority decided against Kanter, but Coney Barrett dissented. The judge wrote the restriction on a felon owning a gun was too broad—that a felony makes someone eligible to have their Second Amendment right taken away, not that they automatically lose that right. Conviction for nonviolent crimes should not lose a citizen their right to bear arms, the judge said.
The dissent does not seem to reflect a willingness on Coney Barrett's part to restore other kinds of rights—like voting rights—to those who are convicted of felonies. She has argued that voting and jury service are rights for a smaller group of "virtuous citizens," while gun rights should only be restricted based on whether or not a person is dangerous.
