台灣大法官 vs. 美國大法官

  vs.   

**T.C.

真的差這麼多嗎?!

剛剛看到聯合報一則新聞報導[學者：深藍深綠，都不適任大法官]（另見中時類似報導），摘錄部分大法官被提名人提供給立法院的自傳，簡直是令人「嘆為觀止」。同時也讓我回想起美國聯邦最高法院首席大法官John G. Roberts, Jr. 兩年前在美國參議院同意權聽證會令人「眼睛一亮」的表現。兩相對照之下不免令人感到：台灣大法官的被提名人與美國大法官的被提名人，怎麼會差這麼多!!

請看以下的例子：

1. 年輕時的生活篇

台灣某位大法官被提名人在提到這個部分時是這麼說的：「小學常玩的是躲避球、滑輪；初中則是冰刀溜冰、游泳；高中是籃球；大學開始室外冬泳、背氣筒潛水、登山，由台北騎腳踏車到台中…」（據報載：「足足寫滿兩頁!!」）

John Roberts提到類似的主題則說: “Senators Lugar and Bayh talked of my boyhood back home in Indiana. I think all of us retain, from the days of our youth, certain enduring images. For me those images are of the endless fields of Indiana, stretching to the horizon, punctuated only by an isolated silo or a barn. And as I grew older, those endless fields came to represent for me the limitless possibilities of our great land.  Growing up, I never imagined that I would be here, in this historic room, nominated to be the chief justice. But now that I am here, I recall those endless fields with their promise of infinite possibilities, and that memory inspires in me a very profound commitment.”

2.良師益友篇

另一位台灣大法官提名人提到：當年以第一名成績考進文化大學法律研究所就讀，「記得入學口試老師其中之一即為李委員復甸先生」。

John Roberts則是這樣說: “I know that I would not be here today were it not for the sacrifices and help over the years of my family, who you met earlier today, friends, mentors, teachers and colleagues — many of whom are here today.  Last week one of those mentors and friends, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, was laid to rest. I talked last week with the nurses who helped care for him over the past year, and I was glad to hear from them that he was not a particularly good patient.  He chafed at the limitations they tried to impose.  His dedication to duty over the past year was an inspiration to me and, I know, to many others.  I will miss him.”

看完以上這兩個例子，我想無須我再贅言，台灣和美國大法官被提名人的高下立判。希望立法委員諸公善盡審查的職責，「寧缺毋濫」，千萬別像「民間監督司法院大法官人選聯盟」一樣「鄉愿」，弄出個「尚無不適任人選」的結果!!

附註：除了以上引用的兩段外，下面的這幾段也是John Roberts在參院聽證會的開場白(opening remarks)中，深深打動我的部分 [開場白全文請按這裡；開場白影音畫面請按這裡]：

“My personal appreciation that I owe a great debt to others reinforces my view that certain humility should characterize the judicial role.  Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around.  Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them.  The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules.  But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire. …

I always found it very moving to stand before the justices and say, I speak for my country.  But it was after I left the department and began arguing cases against the United States that I fully appreciated the importance of the Supreme Court and our constitutional system.

Mr. Chairman, I come before the committee with no agenda.  I have no platform.  Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes.  I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench. And I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”