VOA慢速英語(yǔ):Supreme Court Rules on Three Major Rights Issues

From VOA Learning English, this is In the News.

這里是美國(guó)之音慢速英語(yǔ)新聞報(bào)道。

The United States Supreme Court made decisions on three major rights cases this week.

美國(guó)高等法院本周對(duì)三起重大權(quán)利案件作出了裁決。

On Monday the court released a decision on education policy for minorities. But, the high court chose not to give a final ruling on the policy known as affirmative action.

周一，法院公布了對(duì)少數(shù)族裔教育政策裁決。但是最高法院選擇不對(duì)所謂的“平權(quán)法案”政策做出最終裁決。

The case involves a young white woman, Abigail Fisher, who was rejected by the University of Texas. Her lawyers argued that universities should not be permitted to consider race when trying to accept a diverse class of students. They said that considering someone's race in the admissions process violates their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

該案件涉及一名年輕白人女子阿比蓋爾·費(fèi)舍爾(Abigail Fisher)，她被得克薩斯大學(xué)拒絕。她的律師認(rèn)為，大學(xué)不應(yīng)當(dāng)被允許在錄取各類(lèi)學(xué)生時(shí)考慮種族因素。他們稱(chēng)，在招生過(guò)程中考慮種族違反了人人受到法律平等保護(hù)的憲法權(quán)利。

Seven of the nine justices voted to return the case to a lower court saying it had not fully studied the university's actions.

九名大法官中的七名投票決定將該案件發(fā)回下級(jí)法院審理，并表示美國(guó)高等法院未能深入研究大學(xué)的這一行為。

Opponents praised the Supreme Court for ordering the lower court to enforce a narrower version of the school's affirmative action plan. Civil rights activists welcomed the decision because it did not cancel the policy.

反對(duì)者贊揚(yáng)了高等法院責(zé)令下級(jí)法院收窄執(zhí)行學(xué)校的平權(quán)法案方案。民權(quán)活動(dòng)家對(duì)這一決定表示歡迎，因?yàn)楦叩确ㄔ翰⑽慈∠@一政策。

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court did cancel a part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Congress passed the law to ensure that African Americans in southern states could vote. The court decision ends federal supervision of election laws in states with a history of voter suppression.

周二，美國(guó)高等法院取消了《1965投票權(quán)法案》的一部分內(nèi)容。國(guó)會(huì)通過(guò)了這一法案，以確保南方各州的非裔美國(guó)人可以投票。最高法院裁決取消了對(duì)具有選民禁制歷史的各州選舉法的聯(lián)邦監(jiān)督。

The law was aimed at nine states and some cities and counties in seven other states. These states were required to seek approval from the Justice Department to make changes to their election laws. Congress has repeatedly extended the law, most recently in 2006.

該法是針對(duì)9個(gè)州和其它7個(gè)州中的一些縣市。這些州要求司法部批準(zhǔn)其修改選舉法。國(guó)會(huì)已經(jīng)多次延伸了該法，最近的一次是2006年。

A divided court ruled by a vote of five to four. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that widespread violation of the rights of black voters no longer exists. The majority ruled that the method used to decide which areas require federal supervision violates the rights of states. It said Congress must decide on a better method.

最高法院意見(jiàn)不一致，最終以5：4做出裁決。在多數(shù)派意見(jiàn)中，首席大法官約翰·羅伯茨(John Roberts)寫(xiě)道，現(xiàn)在不再存在普遍侵犯黑人選民權(quán)利的情況。多數(shù)派裁定，用于決定哪些地區(qū)需要聯(lián)邦監(jiān)督的辦法違法了各州的權(quán)利，并表示，國(guó)會(huì)必須確定更好的辦法。

Several states announced they would begin new voting requirements that had been blocked by the Justice Department soon after the ruling.

裁決后不久就有幾個(gè)州宣布，他們將開(kāi)始啟用曾被司法部禁止的投票規(guī)定。

Cherilyn Infill is with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

Cherilyn Infill就職于美國(guó)有色人種協(xié)進(jìn)會(huì)法律辯護(hù)基金。

"Make no mistake about what has happened."

她說(shuō)，“不要誤解了所發(fā)生的事情。”

Speaking to a crowd near the court, she said the court has decided that it stands in a better position than Congress to determine how to protect against voting discrimination.

她在法院附近對(duì)人群表示，最高法院認(rèn)為自己在確定如何防止投票歧視上比國(guó)會(huì)更有優(yōu)勢(shì)。

"The 15th amendment to the constitution makes clear that it is Congress that has that power."

“(但是)憲法第15修正案明確指出，是國(guó)會(huì)擁有這項(xiàng)權(quán)力。”

On Wednesday morning, a different crowd waited outside the court building. Supporters of same-sex marriage cheered when the Supreme Court canceled a federal and a state law on the issue.

周三上午，另一群不同的人等在法院大樓外。當(dāng)最高法院取消了聯(lián)邦和州在這一問(wèn)題上的法律后，同性婚姻的支持者歡呼雀躍。

The court said the 1996 federal law called the Defense of Marriage Act violated the rights of same-sex couples. The court said that the government could not prevent same-sex couples from getting the same tax, health and retirement benefits as traditional husbands and wives. Supporters of the laws promised to continue efforts to limit marriage to legal unions of one man and one woman.

法院認(rèn)為，1996年婚姻保護(hù)法這一聯(lián)邦法違反了同性伴侶的權(quán)利。法院表示，政府不能阻止同性伴侶獲得和傳統(tǒng)夫婦相同的稅收、醫(yī)療和退休福利。而該法支持者承諾，將繼續(xù)努力把婚姻限制為一男一女的合法結(jié)合。