- 本文译自《国家评论》（6月27日）
- 英文标题：Justice Kennedy Retires, and the Legal and Political Ramifications Are Immense
- 作者大卫·弗兰奇（David French），《国家评论》资深撰稿人
- 本文由 万吉庆 译，译文约2000字
- 英文原文见文末
…………………………
今天下午早些时候，大法官安东尼·肯尼迪（Anthony Kennedy）宣布退休。最高法院的观察家一直认为，肯尼迪可能在完成本届任期后辞职，但现在消息已经得到证实。这一刻已经到来。在第一届任期的前两年，特朗普总统将要任命的最高法官人数，和克林顿、小布什、奥巴马在八年的任期内任命的人数相同。这意味着，不论特朗普后续的任期状况如何——不论是因丑闻而缩减任期，还是完整干完两届任期——他将在最高法院留下不可磨灭的印记。特朗普将会留下持久的司法遗产。
实际上，肯尼迪的退休将会引发巨大后果，不论是法律的还是政治的。首先，让我们从法律角度来看。尽管肯尼迪的司法自由主义经常有被夸大之嫌（例如，他撰写或参与过大量坚实的司法判词，保护和重申核心的宪法自由，包括第一、二宪法修正案保护下的自由），但事实上，作为"温和"摇摆型法官，他充当过堕胎权的主要司法卫士，并且要为性革命的法律进展负主要责任。来自Slate（注：一家自由派在线杂志）马克·约瑟夫·斯特恩的这条推特，概括了左翼人士此时此刻的心情。
"肯尼迪法官的退休是自由派的灾难。堕胎机会、同性婚姻、投票权（voting rights，注：不知具体指代哪种投票权）、环境条例——它们现在仍处在危险状态。这对左派而言不啻于一场危机。"
如果特朗普坚定履行承诺，从去年11月拟定的法官清单中遴选下一位大法官，那么，最高法院很大程度上将被五位原旨主义法官主导，而两位最年长的法官都是进步主义者。金斯伯格法官现在85岁，布雷耶法官今年8月将迎来80岁寿辰。很久没有这么一位总统，能有机会对最高法院的司法哲学施加如此明显、如此决定性的影响。同时，这意味着原旨主义者很可能有一个重整我们法律体系的黄金机会，以使其更符合宪法的言语和含义。认为罗诉韦德案（Roe v. Wade）会被推翻也许言过其实，但我们可以很容易地想象到，最高法院将授予州政府更大的自主权以监管堕胎场所。我们也能想象到对言论自由、宗教自由的保护将更为有力，对持有、携带武器的权利的保护将更加完善，与违宪的行政国家的斗争将取得重要进展。
注：特朗普遴选最高法院法官的名单详见下方链接：
其次，让我们看一下政治后果。在中期选举即将来临之际，共和党极度担心届时会出现席位上的"鸿沟"（intensity gap）。民主党选民正厉兵秣马，准备扶持民主党上位。然而，共和党选民——尽管力挺特朗普总统——对共和党却缺乏同样的激情。特别选举（Special elections）在强烈的民主气氛下摇摆不定，尽管普通选民对两党的支持率日益接近，但大多数观察家认为共和党难以让自己的选民投票。我想说，这些担忧在今天有所缓解。
归根到底，对绝大多数共和党基层选民而言，最高法官（的任命）不是普通议题，而是可以驱动共和党选民投票的议题。共和党人在移民政策、贸易政策和外交政策上各行其是。党内分歧是深刻而真实的。但是，一旦最高法官的议题出现，这些分歧就消失了。我们尽可以就俄罗斯对2016年大选的影响（或科米信件的影响）展开讨论，但有一点是肯定的——如果福音派和其他保守主义者不怕进步主义的最高法院对他们基本自由的影响，唐纳德·特朗普本不会赢得大选。一个最高法院的补缺问题，将刺激基础选民达数月之久。
不要忘了，这一补缺问题恰逢处于数代人以来的最恶劣的政治环境之中。进步主义者认为戈萨奇法官的席位是"偷来的"。他们中许多人将特朗普视为一个非法总统——原因包括俄国的干预到以及对特朗普在普选中失利的反感——他们发现，令人不堪忍受的不仅是特朗普赢得了总统大选，而且还要遴选出一位能够左右最高法院的人选。可以预计进步主义者的怒火将进一步升级。针对（共和党）参议员和特朗普政府官员的个人冲突将进一步加剧。政治环境将更加恶化，甚至可能更加危险。
最后，对那些欣喜若狂的保守主义者，我要提醒几句。这种情况我们遇到过。我们有过重造最高法院的机会。里根总统和老布什总统共同任命了最高法院的多数席位。然而，罗诉韦德案仍然没有被推翻，而且最高法院甚至在某些关键议题上"左转"。毕竟总统提名的不是机器人。他们的提名人都有自己的意愿。保守主义者必须仔细评估特朗普潜在的提名人选，但这个人——无论他或她的履历如何——不仅拥有巨大的权力，还将面临巨大的压力。但愿他或她不仅拥有正确的哲学，而且还具备完成所有工作所必需的品格。
这个平静的夏天并不平静。接下来的几周和数月将决定一个影响一代人的最高法院——并将决定谁会控制国会。系好安全带。这将是一段狂野之旅。
—— 保守主义评论
Justice Kennedy Retires, and the Legal and Political Ramifications Are Immense
Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy speaks during a swearing in ceremony for Judge Neil Gorsuch as an associate justice of the Supreme Court in the Rose Garden of the White House, April 10, 2017. (Carlos Barria/File Photo/Reuters)
Earlier this afternoon, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement. Court observers long thought it was possible that he'd step down after this most recent term, but now it's confirmed. The moment has arrived. In the first two years of his first term, President Trump is set to nominate just as many Supreme Court justices as Clinton, Bush, and Obama nominated in all eight years of their presidencies. That means that no matter what happens the rest of his presidency — whether it's cut short by scandal or it extends to two full terms — he'll make an indelible mark on the Court. Trump will have an enduring judicial legacy.
In fact, the consequences of Kennedy's retirement — both legal and political — are immense. First, let's look at the legal angle. While Kennedy's judicial liberalism was often exaggerated (for example, he wrote or joined a number of solid opinions that protected and reaffirmed core constitutional liberties, including liberties protected by the First and Second Amendments), it's a simple fact that as a "moderate" swing justice he served as the primary judicial guardian of abortion rights and was more responsible than any other justice for the relentless legal march of the sexual revolution. This tweet, from Slate's Mark Joseph Stern, sums up the feeling on the left half of Twitter right now:
Justice Kennedy's retirement is a catastrophe for liberals. Abortion access, same-sex marriage, voting rights, environmental regulations—they're all on the line now. This is nothing short of a crisis for the left. slate.com/news-and-polit…
If Trump holds firm to his promise to choose his next justice from the list he put forward last November, the Supreme Court will be dominated by a core of five largely originalist justices, and the next two oldest judges are both progressive. Justice Ginsburg is 85, and Justice Breyer turns 80 in August. It may be quite some time before a president will have the opportunity to so clearly and decisively impact the judicial philosophy of the Court. In the meantime, that means that originalists may well have a golden opportunity to reset our jurisprudence to align more with the words and meaning of the Constitution. It's too much (perhaps) to argue that Roe could fall, but one can easily imagine the Court granting greater autonomy to state governments to regulate abortion providers. One can also imagine more robust protections for free speech and religious liberty, greater protection for the right to keep and bear arms, and further inroads against the unconstitutional administrative state.
And that brings us to politics. Heading into the midterms, Republicans were desperately worried about an "intensity gap." Democratic voters seem prepared to turn out in huge numbers. Republicans — while holding firm in their support for President Trump — lacked the same excitement. Special elections were swinging strongly Democratic, and even though the generic preference numbers were trending closer, most observers thought Republicans would struggle to get their voters to the polls. I'd say those concerns are eased a bit today.
After all, for an immense number of base GOP voters, judges aren't just an issue. They're the issue that drives them to the polls. Republicans are all over the place on immigration policy, trade policy, and foreign policy. Divisions in the party are deep and real. Those divisions disappear when judges are on the line. We can debate all we want about Russian influence on the 2016 election (or about the effect of the Comey letter), but one thing is certain — if Evangelicals and other conservatives weren't afraid of the impact of a progressive Supreme Court on their fundamental liberties, Donald Trump doesn't win. A new Supreme Court pick will galvanize the entire base for months.
And let's not forget that this pick is landing in the middle of one of the most toxic political environments in generations. Progressives believe that Justice Gorsuch sits in a "stolen" seat. Many of them see Trump as an illegitimate president — for reasons that range from Russian interference to disgust at his popular-vote loss — and find it unbearable that he could not just win the presidency but also select the man who could swing the Supreme Court. Expect increasing rage. Expect more personal confrontations of senators and Trump officials. Expect the political environment to get even more toxic, perhaps dangerously so.
Finally, a word of caution to gleeful conservatives. We've been here before. We've had opportunities to remake the Court. President Reagan and the first President Bush together appointed a majority of the Supreme Court. Yet Roe endured, and the Court even moved left on key issues. Presidents don't nominate robots. They nominate people who possess their own will. It will be imperative that conservatives closely evaluate Trump's potential picks, but that person — no matter his or her record — will not only possess immense power, they'll face immense pressure. May he or she possess not just the right philosophy, but also the necessary character to do all the job requires.
So much for a quiet summer. The next weeks and months may well define the Supreme Court for a generation — and help decide who controls Congress. Buckle up. It's going to be a wild ride.
