“一个鼻孔出气”的司法体制之争——美国首席大法官罗伯茨西北大学讲演评述
龙卫球; 1:北京航空航天大学法学院 摘要(Abstract)：

美国最高法院在判例中一直习惯在公布作为结局的所谓多数判决意见的同时,附带公布有关并存意见和不同意见。但是现任美国首席大法官罗伯茨提出挑战这个传统,认为最高法院给出的判决意见应该"明快而清晰"。按照这种思路,判决书中只应给出体现为"意见一致"的判决意见,而不应呈现大法官们的意见分歧,后者只在法官内部的讨论中保留。这个倡议一旦付诸实施,势必意味着一场重大的判决范式革新,因此在美国法律界激起汹涌的讨论。其背后涉及到相当复杂的观念分歧:包括最高法院关于现行法律及未来可能发展的显示方式,最高法院的角色定位等观念分歧问题。罗伯茨的思想可以归结为出自一种"谨慎地运用司法权力"的立场。

关键词(KeyWords)： 罗伯茨;;判决意见;;意见一致;;并存意见;;谨慎运用司法权力

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation):

作者(Author): 龙卫球;

Email:


参考文献(References)： [1]前大法官奥康纳对之便有过类似的誉美,See Sandra Day O'Connor,John Roberts,Time,Sunday,Apr.30,2006.[2]See Bill Barnhart,Roberts Strives for Consensus on Court:Thief Justice Says More Unified Voice Would Strengthen Institution,Chica-go Tribune,February02,2007,http://www.law.northwestern.edu/news/article_full.cfm?eventid=3051.[1]See Cass R.Sunstein,The Minimalist:Chief Justice Roberts favors narrow court rulings that create consensus and tolerate diversity,Los Angeles Times,May25,2006.[2]See Geoffrey Stone,ANarrowViewof the Law,Chicago Tribune,February6th2007.http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/stone-on-roberts/index.html.[3]See Time,Feb.15,2007,Vol.167,No.9,http://205.188.238.109/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1590461,00.html.[4]例如Geoffrey Stone的文章便在网上引起热烈讨论,可参见作者不同名网上文章“Chief Justice Roberts and the Role of the Supreme Court”以及相关讨论,http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2007/02/chief_justice_r.html;相关比较不错的博客文章,See JACCO BOM-HOFF,Defending and Challenging“Minimalism”Empirically,February08,2007,http://www.comparativelawblog.blogspot.com/.[5]See Reynolds Holding,In Defense of Dissents.[6]See Geoffrey Stone,A Narrow View of the Law.[7]See Reynolds Holding,In Defense of Dissents.[1]See Bill Barnhart,Roberts Strives for Consensus on Court:“In recent years,many major cases have been decided5-4,with conservatives winning some and liberals winning others.Even when justices agree on an outcome of a case,opinions frequently are amended by concurring statements.”“In his first termas chief,Roberts sawthe number of dissents fromopinions of the court eased slightly--to60dissents in2005-06from63in the2004-05term.In the2005-06term,two justices on the court's liberal wing,John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer,were the most fre-quent dissenters.”[2]罗伯茨的原话为:“I remain convinced that the court benefits most fromthe distinctive voices of its members when the court meets in con-ference to discuss the disposition of a case and the conference takes the advantage of those views in shaping an opinion for the court”;“that the court could rule authoritatively and win the public's confidence only if it functioned as a collegial body and not simply as a collection of individuals";Those innovations"were essential in making the court more than simply the sum of its membership,""Without that unity,I doubt that the court could have attained the stature it enjoys as the authoritative institution for interpreting federal law."(See Bill Barnhart,Roberts Strives for Consen-sus on Court.)[3]罗伯茨的原话为:"I am not talking about subordinating strongly held views to achieve an artificial consensus.But I am talking about de-ciding cases on narrow grounds,when that allows broader agreement.”(See Bill Barnhart,Roberts Strives for Consensus on Court.)[4]罗伯茨的原话为:“that more of the differences of opinion among the justices should be expressed only in secret,in the court's confer-ences,and not published as separate.”(See Bill Barnhart,Roberts Strives for Consensus on Court.)[1]参见孙斯坦:《社会为什么需要异议》,原为孙斯坦在2003年担任哈佛法学院著名“霍姆斯”演讲系列主讲人的演讲稿,后修成专著出版。[2]孙斯坦在2006年就发表一篇有影响的短文,维护罗伯茨的“裁判统一论”(评论罗伯茨在乔治顿大学法律中心的讲演)的,同时也维护他自己提倡的“司法最小论”。See Cass R.Sunstein,The Minimalist,Chief Justice Roberts favors narrowcourt rulings that create consen-sus and tolerate diversity,Los Angeles Times,May25,2006.[3]See Sunstein,The Minimalist.[4]罗伯茨的原话为:"He quite consciously adopted practices to ensure that the justices would work collaboratively and that the court as much as possible would speak with a unified voice."(See Bill Barnhart,Roberts Strives for Consensus on Court.)[5]罗伯茨的原话为:“housing the justices in the same Washington rooming house,without their families,while they reviewed cases”;"Fol-lowing the arguments,they would go back to the boarding house and conduct their conference over dinner”;"Marshall was an engaging man who could mix serious legal discussion with a pleasant meal";"Marshall used the common quarters of the boarding house to instill in his colleagues the need to work collectively and function as a court";"Under Marshall,the court's judgment was announced in a single opinion,wherever possible ex-pressing the views of the whole court."(See Bill Barnhart,Roberts Strives for Consensus on Court).[7]罗伯茨的原话为:“For them,Marshall set the court on an invalid and dangerous path when he established the power of the court to over-rule laws passed by Congress.”(See Bill Barnhart,Roberts Strives for Consensus on Court.)[2]参见Sunstein,The Minimalist.孙斯坦教授在司法最小主义方面最重要的著述,是他1999的专著《一次一案:司法最小主义在最高法院》(“One Case at a Time:Judicial Minimalismon the Supreme Court”),他的实践思路是,这种最小意味的判决意见应具有以下两个中心特性:(a)限狭(narrowness);(b)浅短(shallowness)。对孙斯坦观点的重要批评,见Neil Siegel关于孙斯坦有关司法最小主义著述的书评,A Theory in Search of a Court,and itself:Judicial Minimalism at the Supreme Court Bar,2005。关于孙斯坦和罗伯茨的关联,还可参见Jacco Bomhoff,Defending and Challenging‘Minimalism’Empirically.