The Political versus the Judicial Nature of the Supreme Court | 最高法院的政治属性与司法属性之辨

📚 The Political versus the Judicial Nature of the Supreme Court | 最高法院的政治属性与司法属性之辨

In Edexcel A-Level Politics, the US Supreme Court is often presented as both a legal court and a political actor. The debate over its political versus judicial nature asks whether justices simply apply the law or make policy choices shaped by ideology. This article examines the constitutional design, appointment politics, judicial review, landmark rulings and competing models of judicial behaviour, with comparative reference to the UK Supreme Court.

在 Edexcel A-Level 政治课程中，美国最高法院常被描述为兼具法律机构与政治行为者的双重角色。关于其政治属性与司法属性的争论，核心在于大法官究竟是单纯适用法律，还是做出受意识形态影响的政策选择。本文从宪法设计、任命政治、司法审查、标志性判例和司法行为模型等方面展开，并与英国最高法院进行对比。

1. Constitutional Foundations and the Ideal of Judicial Independence | 宪法基础与司法独立理想

Article III of the US Constitution establishes the Supreme Court but says little about its powers. Federal judges hold office ‘during good behaviour’, which in practice means life tenure, and their salaries cannot be reduced while in office.

美国宪法第三条设立了最高法院，但对其权力着墨甚少。联邦法官在 “行为良好” 期间任职，实际上意味着终身任职，其薪俸在任期内不得削减。

The Founders intended this to insulate the judiciary from electoral and partisan pressure. In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton called the judiciary the ‘least dangerous’ branch because it has neither the purse nor the sword.

制宪者希望借此让司法机构免受选举和党派压力。汉密尔顿在《联邦党人文集》第78篇中称司法部门为 “最不危险” 的分支，因为它既不掌握钱袋子也不掌握枪杆子。

This design gives the Court a judicial identity, but the very need for independence shows that its decisions can have major political consequences.

这一设计赋予法院司法身份，但正是对独立性的需求表明，其判决可能产生重大政治后果。

2. Judicial Review: The Court as Final Arbiter | 司法审查：法院作为最终仲裁者

The power of judicial review was established in Marbury v Madison (1803), where Chief Justice John Marshall declared that it is ’emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is’.

司法审查权确立于1803年的马伯里诉麦迪逊案，首席大法官约翰·马歇尔宣称 “说明法律是什么，显然是司法部门的职权与责任”。

Judicial review allows the Court to invalidate acts of Congress, presidential actions and state laws that it finds unconstitutional. This inevitably places the Court at the centre of policy disputes over abortion, gun rights, immigration and federal power.

司法审查使最高法院能够推翻其认为违宪的国会立法、总统行为和州法律。这不可避免地将法院置于堕胎、持枪权、移民和联邦权力等政策争议的中心。

Although judges frame rulings in legal reasoning, choosing whether a right exists or a statute is valid often involves value judgements that resemble political decision-making.

尽管法官以法律推理来包装判决，但判断一项权利是否存在或某部法律是否有效，往往涉及类似于政治决策的价值判断。

3. Appointment and Confirmation: Political Battles over the Bench | 任命与确认：围绕大法官席位的政治斗争

Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate. Because justices serve for decades, presidents often choose nominees whose judicial philosophy matches their own agenda.

最高法院大法官由总统提名，并经参议院多数票确认。由于大法官任职数十年，总统往往选择与自己议程相符的司法哲学候选人。

Confirmation hearings have become highly partisan media events. The defeated nomination of Robert Bork in 1987 and the contested confirmations of Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 and Amy Coney Barrett in 2020 show how much is at stake politically.

确认听证会已成为高度党派化的媒体事件。1987年罗伯特·博克的提名被否决，以及2018年布雷特·卡瓦诺和2020年艾米·科尼·巴雷特的争议性确认，都显示出其中的政治利害关系。

This appointment process injects electoral politics into the judiciary, blurring the line between law and partisanship before a new justice even hears a case.

这一任命程序将选举政治注入司法系统，甚至在新大法官审理案件之前，法律与党派之间的界限就已经模糊。

4. Ideological Alignments and Voting Blocs | 意识形态阵营与投票集团

In recent decades, voting behaviour on the Supreme Court has increasingly tracked the party of the appointing president. After the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, the Court had a six-to-three conservative majority.

近几十年来，最高法院的投票行为越来越与提名总统的党派一致。2020年艾米·科尼·巴雷特获得确认后，最高法院形成了六比三的保守派多数。

Conservative justices generally favour originalism and textualism, while liberal justices tend to support living constitution approaches that adapt rights to modern conditions.

保守派大法官通常支持原旨主义和文本主义，而自由派大法官则倾向于支持活的宪法进路，使权利适应现代社会条件。

The table below summarises the broad ideological split in landmark cases.

下表概括了标志性案件中的意识形态分歧。