VOA慢速英語：民主黨、共和黨不同意最高法院提名

00:00

00:00

MP3下載 文本下載

https://online2.tingclass.net/lesson/shi0529/0008/8382/20160503b.mp3

https://image.tingclass.net/statics/js/2012

The Republican and Democratic U.S. senators whohave served the longest in the current Senatedisagree about whether they should take action onPresident Barack Obama’s nomination for the U.S.Supreme Court.

President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garlandto replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died inFebruary. Garland is currently an appeals court judgefor the District of Columbia.

Both political parties believe the nomination isimportant because whoever is confirmed will be ableto influence the court’s decisions. Currently, the courtis split: four justices are considered liberal, four areconsidered conservative.

When Scalia was alive, conservatives won importantcases because five conservative justices sat on the court. Republicans areworried -- and Democrats are hopeful -- that Garland will vote with theliberals now on the court.

Patrick Leahy is the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee,which examines nominations of federal judges. He has been in the Senatelonger than any current senator. He said “we need to do our job” anddebate and vote on the nomination.

Orrin Hatch has been in the Senate longer than any current Republican. He is also a member of the Judiciary Committee. He says the Senate does notapprove a nominee just because a president wants that person to be on theSupreme Court. He and other Republicans believe Scalia should not bereplaced until a new president is sworn in next January. But the Constitutiondoes not limit when in a president’s term he or she can make a nomination.

On Tuesday, Hatch said “conducting a heated, divisive confirmation fightin the middle of an ugly presidential election -- and that certainly describesour presidential election season that is well under way -- would do moreharm than good.”

Hatch spoke at a recent meeting about the Supreme Court nomination, inWashington. At the same meeting, Leahy said “we’ve had numerous,numerous Supreme Court nominees confirmed in an election year.”

The disagreement about whether the Senate should consider a SupremeCourt nominee in a presidential election year has caused a debate aboutwhat the U.S. Constitution requires the Senate to do.

The document says the president “shall nominate, and by and with theAdvice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the SupremeCourt.”

Hatch said, “The Constitution gives the Senate the power of advice andconsent, but does not specify how the Senate ought to exercise that power.Claims that the Constitution dictates when and how the confirmationprocess must occur -- immediate committee hearings or timely floor votes -- are false.”

Leahy said, “What would be historic is to deny Judge Garland a publichearing and a vote. The Senate has considered controversial nominees. But in every one of those instances, the nominee received a public hearingand a vote.”

But Hatch noted that “the Senate has never confirmed a Supreme Courtnominee to a vacancy occurring this late in a president’s tenure.”

Legal experts at the meeting also disagreed on what should take place.

Martin Gold has served as a legal aide to several Republican senators. Hesaid, “The Senate has a duty to consider a nominee, but how it exercisesthat duty is a matter of dispute. In a sense, [Senate] inaction is also action.”

Jeffrey Blattner was a legal aide for Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy,who died in 2009. Blattner noted that, in 1988 – when the Senate wascontrolled by Democrats – it confirmed Anthony Kennedy to the SupremeCourt during Ronald Reagan’s last year as president. It was also apresidential election year.

Blattner said, “It did not occur to us [Democrats] ‘Well, it’s an election year -- [the 1988 Democratic presidential nominee] Michael Dukakis could win, and we don’t have to’” consider the nomination.

People at the meeting agreed that Republicans, who now control theSenate, can refuse for an unlimited period of time to replace a SupremeCourt justice who resigns or dies. The Constitution does not limit theamount of time the Senate can take to act on nominations.

But Leahy says considering the nomination, even this late in BarackObama’s presidency, is something the Senate has a duty to do. He said it isalso in the best interest of the country.

“We are elected to vote yes or no, not ‘maybe.’ You should demand yoursenators do their job by providing this nominee a public hearing. We arecalled to fulfill our constitutional duties. We are called to lead,” he said.

But Hatch said “the Constitution leaves the judgment to” senators to decidewhen and how -- or even if -- it should consider a judicial nomination.

A recent public opinion survey found that fewer than half of Americansunderstand the Senate’s role in confirming presidential nominees. Othersurveys find that a majority of Americans believe the Senate should at leastdebate and vote on the nomination of Merrick Garland to be a justice of theSupreme Court.

I’m Christopher Jones-Cruise.

Words in This Story

conduct – v. to plan and do (something, such as an activity); to behave --especially in a public or formal situation

vacancy – n. a job or position that is available to be taken

tenure – n. the amount of time that a person holds a job, office or title