美健保闖關成功：挺健保案 羅伯茲:依循最高法院傳統

策劃、編譯■李威撰、謝雯伃美國最高法院6月28日作出裁決，歐巴馬健保法案並未違憲。扮演關鍵角色的首席大法官羅伯茲，為何出人意表地選擇支持法案？另外，有執業醫師分別從實地經驗及宏觀角度出發，解釋美國這項重大改革案，為何是無可抵擋的趨勢。▲美國最高法院首席大法官羅伯茲。（圖／路透）美國總統歐巴馬的健保法案，最後取決於最高法院的首席大法官羅伯茲。這位坐在主位有如斯芬克斯（人面獅身）一樣的大法官，在彼此交鋒的理由當中做出驚人決定，選擇支持歐巴馬的健保計畫。In the end, it all came down to Chief Justice John Roberts, the sphinx in the center chair, who in a stunning decision wove together competing rationales to uphold President Barack Obama's healthcare plan.羅伯茲的舉動，立刻推翻普遍的認知，以為他會跟最高法院其餘4名的保守派同僚一樣，阻撓民主黨總統的這項提案。歐巴馬2005年還是參議員的時後，曾反對羅伯茲被提名為大法官人選。Roberts' action instantly upended （1） the conventional wisdom that he would vote with his four fellow conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court and undercut the agenda of a Democratic president, who as a senator in 2005 had opposed Roberts' appointment to the bench.尊重國會的重大法案儘管這場健保鏖戰得出意外的結果，但就某些層面而言並不令人意外。羅伯茲依循最高法院傳統原則，只要法官能夠找尋支持法案的憲法基礎，就應該要贊成該法案。這名57歲的首席大法官，也遵循他本人一項清楚的原則：票數接近時，在極化的華府政治當中，保全司法單位的完整性。But Thursday's extraordinary conclusion to the bitterly fought healthcare battle was quite ordinary in some ways. Roberts hewed to a traditional Supreme Court principle that if the justices can find any constitutional grounds on which to uphold a law, they should do so. The 57-year-old chief justice also followed a stated principle of his own: narrowly deciding cases and trying to preserve the integrity of the judiciary in polarized Washington.儘管他在像是人工流產和種族議題的投票上，與保守陣營立場一致，但羅伯茲也曾公開發言指出，身為首席大法官，他希望能超脫意識形態的標籤。他經常指出最高法院在歷史上的角色，羅伯茲對民意及輿論也感到不悅，因為後者認為最高法院的政治立場，應該跟民選的行政及立法部門保持一致。While he has voted consistently with the conservative bloc on social issues, such as abortion rights and racial policies, Roberts in his public remarks has suggested that he seeks, as chief, to transcend an ideological （2） label. He routinely refers to the court's place in history and has bristled at polls and public commentary that suggest the high court acts in the same political realm as the two elected branches of government.的確，在健保法案的口頭辯論期間，羅伯茲曾暗示，不排除與政府站在同一邊。他對自己主持的最高法院，可能會忽略已經超過75年的慣例，而回到新政時期的美國法律感到擔憂。美國最高法院上一次否決國會通過的重大法案是在1936年，該法案限制煤炭工人的工時及最低薪資，但最高法院宣布這項聯邦法律無效。Indeed, in his comments during oral arguments in the healthcare case, Roberts hinted that he could be open to siding with the government. He expressed concern that the court over which he presides might be seen as ignoring more than 75 years of precedent and rolling back U.S. law to the New Deal era. The last time the Supreme Court struck down a major act of Congress was in 1936, when the court invalidated a federal law that limited work hours and prescribed minimum wages for coal workers.「他讓最高法院成為華府唯一的、合格的、有原則的機構。」史丹佛大學法學教授卡蘭表示：「首席大法官的意見應該是深思熟慮、審慎的。長遠來看，他的表現是稱職的。」"He is positioning the court as the one, competent, principled institution in Washington," said Pamela Karlan, a Stanford University law professor. "The chief justice's opinion is designed to appear thoughtful, measured. He is in this for the long haul."跌破眾人眼鏡羅伯茲是唯一與其他4位自由派立場一致的保守派法官，背離近來的歷史、大多數民眾的預期，以及對他懷有深切期望的右派與茶黨等法案反對者。他也跌破共和黨人的眼鏡，5年前小布希提名他時，他們是他最有力的靠山。As the lone conservative standing with four liberals, Roberts defied recent history, most people's expectations, and the deepest held hopes of the right-wing and Tea Party opponents of the law. He also rejected the prevailing view of Republican politicians, who had been his strongest backers when President George W. Bush nominated him five years ago.聖塔卡拉拉大學法學教授瓊德福表示：「儘管龐大壓力要求廢除法案，但法庭避免自己有過度黨派之私。」"The court avoided, despite an enormous amount of pressure to invalidate this law, staining itself as excessively partisan," said Bradley Joondeph, a law professor at Santa Clara University.羅伯茲主持的最高法院，投下游離票的通常是大法官安東尼．甘迺迪，而非羅伯特本人。舉例而言，雷根總統1988年指派的大法官甘迺迪，在1992年支持人工流產權利的問題上扮演要角。5月28日的投票，羅伯茲第一次加入自由派陣營，成為關鍵第5票。On the Roberts court, the swing-vote role has often been played by Justice Anthony Kennedy, not the chief himself. For example, Kennedy, a conservative appointed to the court by President Ronald Reagan in 1988, was crucial to its 1992 decision to uphold the right to abortion. Thursday's case marked the first time that Roberts joined the liberal bloc as the deciding fifth vote in a major case.甘迺迪5月28日與保守派同一陣線，並朗讀他們的聯合反對聲明。在聯合反對聲明中，他強烈抨擊羅伯茲所聲稱的，最高法院這次是謹慎而行。「最高法院認為其牽強的法條解釋是司法節制。」甘迺迪寫道：「不是，這其實已經是過度的司法越權。」On Thursday, Kennedy fell in with the conservatives and read their joint dissent. In it, he took a swipe at Roberts' claim that the court was acting cautiously. "The court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty," Kennedy wrote. "It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching."肯定國會有權課稅羅伯茲讓保守派以重大犧牲換取勝利。他反對歐巴馬政府的主要論點，該論點認為，強制絕大多數美國人必須在2014年以前購買健保，否則將面臨處罰，這一法律的核心，已包含在國會管制州際貿易的權力當中。羅伯茲表示，這種力量雖大，卻不能延伸擴大至「不作為」，譬如選擇不要購買保險。Roberts did hand the conservatives a pyrrhic victory （3）. He rejected the Obama administration's main argument that the core of the law, a mandate that requires most Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face a penalty, was covered by Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. Roberts said that power, while broad, does not extend to "inactivity （4）," such as the choice not to buy insurance.這次對「貿易條款」的明顯限制，未來是否會阻礙國會權力仍有待觀察。正反雙方的主張及論述，都強調了強制性醫療保險的特殊性，未來是否有其他國會規定，以羅伯茲的「不作為」為理由而被推翻，這點尚不明確。羅伯茲對貿易條款的判決，得到甘迺迪、史卡利亞、阿利托和托馬斯等4名保守派大法官贊同。Whether this apparent limiting of the Commerce Clause will hinder Congressional power in the future remains to be seen. In their briefs and arguments, both sides characterized the health insurance mandate as distinctive, and it is unclear whether another Congressional regulation could be struck down under the Roberts "inactivity" rationale. Roberts' judgment on the Commerce Clause issue was endorsed by fellow conservatives Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.然而，在支持強制保險的另一個憲法根據上，羅伯茲接受歐巴馬政府的第二項論據，即國會有權徵稅，因此判決歐巴馬政府勝出。羅伯茲指出，儘管國會不願將不購買保險的罰款視為「稅收」，但實際上就是一種徵稅。But in turning to another constitutional ground on which to uphold the mandate, Congress' taxation power, Roberts embraced the Obama administration's secondary argument - and delivered a victory to the President. Roberts reasoned that even though Congress had shied away from calling the penalty for not buying insurance a "tax," it effectively is one.羅伯茲強調，最高法院並沒替行政部門的作法背書，「因為憲法允許徵收這類的稅款，我們的角色不是去禁止，或基於它的智慧或公平性而通過」。Roberts stressed that the court was not endorsing the administration's approach. "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," he said.28日當他宣讀這項劃時代判決的摘要時，羅伯茲似乎有意要輕描淡寫這齣晨間上演的戲碼。他用平穩的聲音按稿宣讀，少有修辭性的點綴。他偶爾望向觀眾，曾與羅伯茲共事、在2年前以90歲高齡退休的自由派大法官史蒂文斯，也是底下觀眾之一。As he read excerpts from the momentous decision Thursday, Roberts seemed to downplay （5） the drama of the morning. His voice was steady and even. He kept to his script. There were few rhetorical flourishes. He occasionally looked out at the spectators. Among them was Justice John Paul Stevens, a liberal who had served with Roberts until he retired two years ago at the age of 90.羅伯茲接著唸出與他在判決上某些部分立場一致的法官，以及其他不同意見者，整個宣讀過程，約花費了20分鐘。Roberts then named the justices who had joined him in various parts of the decision, and those who had not. All told, it took about 20 minutes.（路透Reuters）關鍵字詞1. upend (v.) 推翻2. ideological (a.) 意識形態的3. pyrrhic victory (n.)代價過高的慘勝4. inactivity (n.) 不作為5. downplay (n.) 輕描淡寫