President Trump's choice for the next Supreme Court judge has been facing questions from senators.

特朗普總統對下一任最高法院法官的選擇一直面臨著參議員的質疑。

Let's listening on the live feed.

讓我們在直播中聆聽。

Now Senator Amy Klobuchar has been asking about the Supreme Court on postal voting.

現在參議員Amy Klobuchar一直在詢問最高法院關於郵政投票的情況。

He did.

他做到了。

But then yesterday, three Trump appointed judges came in and reverse that.

但昨天，三位特朗普任命的法官來了，推翻了這一切。

So we're back toe one ballot box for people to drop their ballots off.

所以我們又回到了一個投票箱裡 讓人們把選票投出去了

In a county of 4.7 million people in Tennessee, Republicans have tried to prevent ballot drop boxes.

在田納西州一個擁有470萬人口的縣，共和黨人試圖阻止投票投箱。

I know we had the secretary of state as one of our witnesses at a Rules Committee hearing, and they have argued in court that Cove in 19 is not a valid excuse to vote by mail.

我知道，在規則委員會的聽證會上，州務卿是我們的證人之一，他們在法庭上爭辯說，19年的科夫不是通過郵寄投票的有效藉口。

In North Carolina, the Supreme Court struck down a core component of the Voting Rights Act.

在北卡羅來納州，最高法院否決了《投票權法》的一個核心內容。

What happened?

怎麼了？

Well, states like North Carolina passed laws that were so egregious to make it harder to vote that the fourth Circuit struck down their law and noted that a target African Americans with almost surgical precision.

好吧，像北卡羅來納州這樣的州通過的法律是如此惡劣，使其更難投票，第四巡迴法院駁回了他們的法律，並指出，一個目標非洲裔美國人幾乎是外科手術般的精確。

So that is what the stakes are, and that is why not.

所以這就是利害關係，這就是為什麼不。

Having justice Ginsburg on the court right now is so frightening to so many Americans out there.

現在有金斯伯格法官在法庭上，對很多美國人來說，是如此的可怕。

And that is why we're asking you these questions about voting.

這就是為什麼我們要問你這些關於投票的問題。

So let me turn to another So that z Senator Klobuchar making a statement as much as asking a question.

所以，讓我轉到另一個所以，z參議員Klobuchar做一個聲明，就像問一個問題一樣。

You can see Amy Coney about listening intently and no doubt will respond in time.

你可以看到艾米-康尼關於專心聽講，毫無疑問會及時回覆。

We'll keep listening across that now.

我們現在就繼續聽過去。

Remember President Trump nominated Judge Barrett after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

還記得特朗普總統在魯斯-巴德爾-金斯伯格去世後提名巴雷特法官嗎？

She was on the liberal side of the court.

她是法庭上的自由派。

If Miss Barrett replaces her, they would then be a strong conservative majority of 6 to 3 and conservative Americans a keen on the nominee because of her record on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and gun rights.

如果巴雷特小姐取而代之，那麼他們將是一個強大的保守派多數，以6比3和保守的美國人一個熱衷於被提名者，因為她在墮胎，同志婚姻和槍支權利等問題上的記錄。

But senators weren't getting many detailed answers from her today on her beliefs on those issues.

但參議員們今天並沒有從她那裡得到很多關於她在這些問題上的信念的詳細回答。

For example, here's the Democrat Dianne Feinstein, it xda stressing not to get a straight answer.

例如，這裡的民主黨人戴安-費恩斯坦，它xda強調不要得到一個直接的答案。

So let me try again.

所以讓我再試一次。

Do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that Roe was wrongly decided?

你是否同意斯卡利亞大法官的觀點，即羅伊案的判決是錯誤的？

Senator, I completely understand why you are asking the question, but again, I can't pre commit or say Yes, I'm going in with some agenda because I'm not.

參議員，我完全理解你為什麼要問這個問題，但我又不能預先承諾或說是的，我是帶著某種議程去的，因為我不是。

I don't have any agenda have no agenda to try to overrule Casey.

我沒有任何議程 沒有任何議程試圖推翻凱西。

I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.

我有一個議程，就是堅持法治，隨案判決。

That was Judge Barrett answer on abortion or, more specifically, the 1973 Supreme Court case that gave American women the right to choose toe have an abortion.

那是巴雷特法官對墮胎的回答，更具體地說，是1973年最高法院給美國婦女選擇墮胎權利的案件。

Democrats are skeptical of her answers.

民主黨人對她的回答持懷疑態度。

Senator Elizabeth Warren has tweeted Amy Coney.

參議員伊麗莎白-沃倫在推特上發了艾米-科尼。

Barrett signed an ad calling Roe versus Wade barbaric and spoke to anti abortion groups.

巴雷特簽署了一份廣告，稱羅伊與韋德是野蠻的，並向反墮胎組織發表講話。

Now she won't say whether Roe was wrongly decided.

現在她不願意說羅伊案是否判決錯誤。

Don't be fooled.

不要被騙了。

Barrett has an agenda, she says, to get on the court to overturn reproductive rights.

她說，巴雷特有一個議程，要上法庭推翻生育權。

On although the original Supreme Court case was almost 50 years ago, this still remains a key election issue for some voters.

雖然最高法院的原案已經過去了近50年，但對一些選民來說，這仍然是一個關鍵的選舉問題。

Indeed, many Republican politicians would like to see Roe versus Wade overturned, but public opinion is largely in favor of abortion rights.

事實上，許多共和黨政客希望看到羅伊與韋德被推翻，但公眾輿論大多支持墮胎權。

This graph is from Pew Research.

這張圖來自皮尤研究。

It shows 61% of Americans think abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

它顯示61%的美國人認為在所有或大多數情況下墮胎應該是合法的。

Well, Judge Barrett was also questioned about the Affordable Care Act.

好吧，巴雷特法官也被問到了關於平價醫療法案的問題。

You'll often hear that called Obamacare.

你會經常聽到，叫奧巴馬醫改。

It looks likely this will end up in the Supreme Court shortly after the election, which is why it's coming up so much.

看起來很有可能在大選後不久就會在最高法院結束，這也是為什麼會出現這麼多的問題。

Here's one exchange.

這裡有一個交流。

Any issue that would arise under the Affordable Care Act or any other statute should be determined by the law by looking at the text of the statute by looking at precedent, um, the same way that it would for anyone and if there were policy differences or policy consequences, those air for this body for the court, it's really a question of adhering to the law, going where the law leads and leaving the policy decisions up to you.

根據平價醫療法案或任何其他法規會出現的任何問題都應該由法律決定，通過查看法規的文本，通過查看先例，嗯，同樣的方式，它將為任何人，如果有政策差異或政策後果，這些空氣為這個機構為法院，它真的是一個遵守法律的問題，去法律導致的地方，並將政策決定留給你。

Then Democrats are also considering what might happen if the election results end up in the Supreme Court.

那麼民主黨人也在考慮，如果選舉結果最終落到最高法院，可能會發生什麼。

Bear in mind, that happened before in 2000.

要知道，那是在2000年之前發生的。

Here's what she said on that it would be a complete violation of the independence of the judiciary, for anyone to put a justice on the court as a means of obtaining a particular result.

她是這樣說的：任何人把一個法官放在法庭上作為獲得特定結果的手段，都是對司法獨立的完全侵犯。

And that's why, as I was mentioning, I think to Senator Grassley that the questionnaire that I fill out for this committee makes clear that I have made no pre commitments to anyone about how I would decide a case that's out of respect for Article three, and its designation of the judiciary is a co equal and independent branch of government.

這就是為什麼，正如我所提到的，我認為對格拉斯利參議員來說，我為這個委員會填寫的問卷清楚地表明，我沒有向任何人做出任何關於我將如何決定一個案件的預先承諾，這是出於對第三條的尊重，其指定的司法機構是政府的一個共同平等和獨立的分支。

I want to bring in Laura Trevelyan in Washington.

我想請華盛頓的勞拉-特雷弗利安進來。

Who is watching it?

誰在看？

Laura.

勞拉

If the Democrats were hoping to knock her off her stride, they don't seem to have managed it well, this is pretty much the pattern.

如果民主黨人希望把她打掉，他們似乎沒有管理好，這幾乎是一種模式。

She is the third conservative justice that President Trump has put forward for the Supreme Court in his time in office on the previous two followed exactly the same playbook.

她是特朗普總統在任期內為最高法院提出的第三位保守派大法官，在前兩位大法官身上遵循的是完全相同的玩法。

In fact, the playbook goes all the way back to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose seat Amy Coney Barrett would potentially take on the Supreme Court on in her hearing in 1993 on Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that she would not talk about how she could rule on a potential case.

事實上，這個劇本可以追溯到Ruth Bader Ginsburg，她的座位Amy Coney Barrett將有可能在1993年關於Ruth Bader Ginsburg的聽證會上擔任最高法院的職務，她說她不會談論她如何對一個潛在的案件進行裁決。

She said, no hints, no forecasts, no previews on.

她說，沒有提示，沒有預測，沒有預告就。

Actually, Amy Coney Barrett quoted her today.

事實上，艾米-科尼-巴雷特今天引用了她的話。

So there you have it.

所以，你有它。

Checkmate.

將軍

Very frustrating for Democrats.

對民主黨人來說，非常沮喪。

They can't lay a finger on her.

他們不能指責她。

They don't have the votes to stop her.

他們沒有票數來阻止她。

So all they could do, really is trying to draw attention to the rulings, which they believe she would cast pivotal votes on namely Affordable Care Act.

所以，他們能做的，其實就是想引起人們對裁決的關注，他們相信她會在裁決上投出關鍵性的一票，即平價醫療法案。

That's health insurance for millions of Americans who don't have that much money, abortion and also same sex marriage.

那是數百萬沒有那麼多錢的美國人的醫療保險，墮胎，還有同性婚姻。

Laura, Will the senators be calling witnesses to talk about their interactions with Amy Coney?

勞拉，參議員們會不會傳喚證人 談談他們與艾米-科尼的互動？

Barrett.

巴雷特

Well, we heard yesterday from Amy Coney Ban, it's law professor at Notre Dame University, who spoke to the quality of her as a legal scholar on This is what you have Republicans emphasizing because they don't really want to talk about the issues here, which are hot button issues.

好吧，我們昨天聽到了艾米-科尼-班，它是聖母大學的法律教授，她談到了她作為法律學者的品質，這是你讓共和黨人強調的，因為他們真的不想談論這裡的問題，這是熱點問題。

They don't particularly want to talk about abortion.

他們不是特別想談墮胎的事。

They don't want to talk about the idea that there could be a contested election that would come before the Supreme Court.

他們不想談論可能會在最高法院舉行有爭議的選舉的想法。

So they're talking about Amy Coney Barrett.

所以他們說的是Amy Coney Barrett。

Impeccable legal credentials.

無可挑剔的法律資格。

The fact she's a mother of seven that she has two adopted Children, including she also has a child with down syndrome.

事實上，她是一個七的母親，她有兩個收養的孩子，包括她也有一個孩子與唐氏綜合症。

So she's really summing up this idea of the capable professional woman.

所以她真的是在總結這種有能力的職業女性的理念。

Republicans are hoping, in fact, that she'll help them close that gender gap.

共和黨人希望，事實上，她能幫助他們縮小這種性別差距。

Joe Biden seems to have a big lead with women in polling, so by confirming her to the court.

喬-拜登在民調中似乎在女性中佔據了很大的優勢，所以通過確認她上庭。

Republicans are hoping to change the subject, get away from coronavirus, also not talk about all of these problematic cases that she could rule on.

共和黨人希望改變話題，遠離冠狀病毒，也不談她可能裁決的所有這些問題案例。

But Democrats keep bringing it back.

但民主黨人一直把它帶回來。

Thio the key things that they believe could come up in front of the court.

Thio他們認為可能會出現在法庭前的關鍵事情。