Name: 上院權衡特朗普爭奪人口普查權的問題 (SCOTUS weighs Trump's contentious census bid)
Uploaded: 2020-11-30T18:46:12.000Z
Duration: 2 min 7 s

關係子句

S Supreme Court on Monday is set to take up President Donald Trump's unprecedented and contentious effort to exclude illegal immigrants from the census, which if successful, could limit the political power of some Democratic leaning states.

S最高法院週一將採取總統唐納德-特朗普史無前例的和有爭議的努力，將非法移民排除在人口普查之外，如果成功，可能會限制一些民主黨傾向的州的政治權力。

Trump, whose hardline stance against immigration has been a hallmark of his presidency, issued the directive in July.

特朗普對移民的強硬立場一直是其總統任期的標誌，他在7月發佈了這一指令。

His challengers, which include several US states led by New York, have argued that the move would leave several million people uncounted and cause states with large numbers of immigrants like heavily Democratic California to lose seats in the U.

他的挑戰者包括以紐約為首的美國幾個州，他們認為，此舉將有幾百萬人沒有被計算在內，並導致像重度民主黨的加州這樣移民人數眾多的州失去在美國的席位。

House seats are based on a state's population count.

眾議院的席位是基於一個州的人口統計。

The case focuses on one of several policy moves the Trump Administration is rushing to complete before President elect Joe Biden takes office on January 20th.

本案的焦點是特朗普政府在1月20日當選總統拜登上任前急於完成的幾項政策舉措之一。

The Supreme Court, which has a 6 to 3 conservative majority, including three justices appointed by Trump, is scheduled to hear an 80 minute Orel argument by teleconference Monday.

最高法院以6比3的保守派多數，包括特朗普任命的三名大法官，定於週一通過電話會議聽取80分鐘的奧雷爾辯論。

Constitution, which requires that the apportionment of house seats be based upon the quote whole number of persons in each state.

《憲法》規定，眾議院席位的分配應以每個州的整數人為基礎。

The Supreme Court last year ruled 5 to 4 against Trump's effort to add a citizenship question to the census, Trump's administration would base its numbers on data gathered elsewhere.

最高法院去年以5:4的比例裁決反對特朗普在人口普查中增加公民身份問題的努力，特朗普政府將根據其他地方收集的數據來確定其數字。

There are an estimated 11 million immigrants living in the U.

Ah, lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union told Reuters he is optimistic.

啊，美國公民自由聯盟的律師告訴路透社，他很樂觀。

The courts conservatives, who often tout the importance of interpreting laws as written, would view this as a quote rather easy case.

法院的保守派，經常宣傳解釋法律的書面重要性，他們會認為這是一個報價相當容易的情況。

 But a professor at George Mason University's Antonen Scalia Law School in Virginia, who filed a brief opposing Trump, said although the challengers have a strong case, one obstacle could be that some conservative justices embrace a broad view of presidential powers. 

但弗吉尼亞州喬治-梅森大學安東寧-斯卡利亞法學院的一位教授提交了反對特朗普的辯護詞，他說，雖然挑戰者有很強的理由，但一個障礙可能是一些保守派大法官接受了對總統權力的廣泛看法。