通过三个判决，了解这位被特朗普“看中”的大法官
美国最高法院大法官露丝•巴德•金斯伯格去世后，白宫正在推进提名人选来填补这个空缺席位。9月25日晚上，特朗普总统提名正在芝加哥第七巡回上诉法院任职的埃米•科尼•巴雷特为最高法院大法官。
巴雷特已经是特朗普的司法提名人。2017年，总统以55票赞成、43票反对的结果任命她担任现职。作为已故最高法院大法官安东宁•斯卡利亚的前书记员，巴雷特以原旨主义者（originalist）和她的学术生涯而闻名。（注：原旨主义是指应依据制宪者的意图或者宪法条文的含义来解释宪法。）
SCOTUS博客展示了一些具体的案例，以及与之相关的裁决和异议。这些信息或将揭示巴雷特会如何在国家最高法院行使她的职权。
印第安纳和肯塔基计划生育公司诉印第安纳州卫生部专员等案
这个印第安纳州的案件是巴雷特在第七巡回法院任职期间两次涉裁堕胎问题中的一次。
该诉讼涉及印第安纳州的一项法律——禁止女性因性别、种族或残疾等原因而选择终止妊娠。举个例子，按照法律规定，孕妇在得知胎儿患有唐氏综合症后，禁止堕胎。
当这个案子送到巴雷特面前时，她的职责是单独研究法律中关于胎儿遗体处置的问题（其他共和党司法委任者已经就该法律的其他部分作出了决定，表示反对该立法）。然而，巴雷特补充了一项她本人自发的意见，她写道：“最高法院的堕胎裁决中，没有一项认为各州无权阻止为选择孩子的性别、种族和其他属性而进行的堕胎。”
正是这个意见，显示了巴雷特反堕胎的决心。
多伊诉普渡大学案
据《华盛顿邮报》报道，2019年，在一个由三名女性组成的法官小组中，巴雷特在多伊诉普渡大学一案中做出裁决，“让被控性侵的学生更容易挑战其大学对案件的处理”。
该案件涉及一起性侵指控——一名名叫简•多伊的女子指控一名名叫约翰•多伊的男子性侵。约翰•多伊被大学内部裁定犯有性暴力罪，并被学校开除。约翰就大学开除他并剥夺奖学金一事起诉普渡大学。巴雷特的裁决决定，他的案件应当继续审理，他可能因为自己的性别而受到歧视——她写道：“大学官员选择相信简是因为她是女人，不相信约翰是因为他是男人。”
国家妇女法律中心的教育和工作场所正义副总裁埃米丽•马丁指出，巴雷特最终得出结论：奥巴马政府要求大学认真对待校园性侵犯，因此，约翰可能会由于他的性别而受到歧视。巴雷特在这件事上发表意见之前，许多保守派活动人士已经对奥巴马时代对大学的指导意见提出抗议。通过巴雷特在她的论点中所做的联系，我们可以窥探出她对性别歧视和性侵犯问题的一些见解。
马丁说：“把对性行为不检的重视当作对男性的歧视，以性别歧视为剑来刺伤解决性侵犯案件的努力，这是一种糟糕的做法。”
坎特诉巴尔案
2019年，坎特诉巴尔一案涉及持枪权利。瑞基•坎特拥有一家矫形鞋类公司，他因虚假陈述其产品而被判邮件欺诈罪。在那次定罪之后，作为一名重罪犯，坎特被判再无资格拥有枪支。他就这一限制提起诉讼，称作为一名非暴力重罪犯，这一限制违反了第二修正案赋予他的权利。
多数人反对坎特，但巴雷特不同意。她认为，对重罪犯拥有枪支的限制太过宽泛——一项重罪将使罪犯“有资格被剥夺”第二修正案赋予的权利，而不是说他们会“自动失去”这项权利。她说，非暴力犯罪的定罪不应剥夺公民携带武器的权利。
但是，巴雷特提出的这一异议似乎并不意味着她愿意恢复重罪犯的投票权等其他权利。她认为，投票和担任陪审员是一小部分“有道德的公民”的权利，而拥有枪支的权利应该只根据一个人是否危险而决定是否加以限制。（财富中文网）
编译：杨二一
美国最高法院大法官露丝•巴德•金斯伯格去世后，白宫正在推进提名人选来填补这个空缺席位。9月25日晚上，特朗普总统提名正在芝加哥第七巡回上诉法院任职的埃米•科尼•巴雷特为最高法院大法官。
巴雷特已经是特朗普的司法提名人。2017年，总统以55票赞成、43票反对的结果任命她担任现职。作为已故最高法院大法官安东宁•斯卡利亚的前书记员，巴雷特以原旨主义者（originalist）和她的学术生涯而闻名。（注：原旨主义是指应依据制宪者的意图或者宪法条文的含义来解释宪法。）
SCOTUS博客展示了一些具体的案例，以及与之相关的裁决和异议。这些信息或将揭示巴雷特会如何在国家最高法院行使她的职权。
印第安纳和肯塔基计划生育公司诉印第安纳州卫生部专员等案
这个印第安纳州的案件是巴雷特在第七巡回法院任职期间两次涉裁堕胎问题中的一次。
该诉讼涉及印第安纳州的一项法律——禁止女性因性别、种族或残疾等原因而选择终止妊娠。举个例子，按照法律规定，孕妇在得知胎儿患有唐氏综合症后，禁止堕胎。
当这个案子送到巴雷特面前时，她的职责是单独研究法律中关于胎儿遗体处置的问题（其他共和党司法委任者已经就该法律的其他部分作出了决定，表示反对该立法）。然而，巴雷特补充了一项她本人自发的意见，她写道：“最高法院的堕胎裁决中，没有一项认为各州无权阻止为选择孩子的性别、种族和其他属性而进行的堕胎。”
正是这个意见，显示了巴雷特反堕胎的决心。
多伊诉普渡大学案
据《华盛顿邮报》报道，2019年，在一个由三名女性组成的法官小组中，巴雷特在多伊诉普渡大学一案中做出裁决，“让被控性侵的学生更容易挑战其大学对案件的处理”。
该案件涉及一起性侵指控——一名名叫简•多伊的女子指控一名名叫约翰•多伊的男子性侵。约翰•多伊被大学内部裁定犯有性暴力罪，并被学校开除。约翰就大学开除他并剥夺奖学金一事起诉普渡大学。巴雷特的裁决决定，他的案件应当继续审理，他可能因为自己的性别而受到歧视——她写道：“大学官员选择相信简是因为她是女人，不相信约翰是因为他是男人。”
国家妇女法律中心的教育和工作场所正义副总裁埃米丽•马丁指出，巴雷特最终得出结论：奥巴马政府要求大学认真对待校园性侵犯，因此，约翰可能会由于他的性别而受到歧视。巴雷特在这件事上发表意见之前，许多保守派活动人士已经对奥巴马时代对大学的指导意见提出抗议。通过巴雷特在她的论点中所做的联系，我们可以窥探出她对性别歧视和性侵犯问题的一些见解。
马丁说：“把对性行为不检的重视当作对男性的歧视，以性别歧视为剑来刺伤解决性侵犯案件的努力，这是一种糟糕的做法。”
坎特诉巴尔案
2019年，坎特诉巴尔一案涉及持枪权利。瑞基•坎特拥有一家矫形鞋类公司，他因虚假陈述其产品而被判邮件欺诈罪。在那次定罪之后，作为一名重罪犯，坎特被判再无资格拥有枪支。他就这一限制提起诉讼，称作为一名非暴力重罪犯，这一限制违反了第二修正案赋予他的权利。
多数人反对坎特，但巴雷特不同意。她认为，对重罪犯拥有枪支的限制太过宽泛——一项重罪将使罪犯“有资格被剥夺”第二修正案赋予的权利，而不是说他们会“自动失去”这项权利。她说，非暴力犯罪的定罪不应剥夺公民携带武器的权利。
但是，巴雷特提出的这一异议似乎并不意味着她愿意恢复重罪犯的投票权等其他权利。她认为，投票和担任陪审员是一小部分“有道德的公民”的权利，而拥有枪支的权利应该只根据一个人是否危险而决定是否加以限制。（财富中文网）
编译：杨二一
After the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the White House is moving ahead with a nominee to fill the open seat. On September 25 night, President Trump nominated to the Supreme Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago.
Coney Barrett is already a Trump judicial nominee; the President appointed her to her current seat in 2017 with a 55-43 Senate confirmation vote. A former clerk for late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Coney Barrett is known as an originalist and for her career in academia.
A few specific cases—and her rulings and dissents related to them, as highlighted by SCOTUS Blog—also shed light on how Coney Barrett would approach her purview on the nation's highest bench.
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. v. Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health, et al.
This case, colloquially referred to as Indiana, is one of two times the issue of abortion has come before Coney Barrett during her tenure on the 7th circuit.
The suit concerned an Indiana law that barred abortions performed for reasons related to sex, race, or disability—like if a woman chose to end a pregnancy after learning her fetus had Down syndrome.
When the case made its way in front of Coney Barrett, she was being asked to consider a separate portion of the law concerning the disposal of fetal remains (other Republican judicial appointees had decided other questions about the law, coming down in opposition to the legislation). However, Coney Barrett chose to add an additional unsolicited opinion, writing that "none of the Court’s abortion decisions holds that states are powerless to prevent abortions designed to choose the sex, race, and other attributes of children.”
The unprompted opinion suggests the strength of Coney Barrett's opposition to abortion rights.
Doe v. Purdue University
On a three-woman panel of judges, Coney Barrett in 2019 wrote a ruling in Doe v. Purdue University that "made it easier for students accused of sexual assault to challenge universities’ handling of their cases," reports the Washington Post.
The case considered a lawsuit over a sexual assault allegation in which a woman identified as Jane Doe accused a man identified as John Doe of assault; John Doe had been found guilty of sexual violence by an internal university ruling and was expelled from the school. John Doe sued Purdue over his expulsion and the loss of his scholarship; Coney Barrett's ruling determined that his case could move forward and that he may have been discriminated against because of his gender. "It is plausible that [university officials] chose to believe Jane because she is a woman and to disbelieve John because he is a man," the judge wrote.
Coney Barrett came to the conclusion that John Doe could have been discriminated against because of his gender because of the Obama Administration's guidance instructing universities to take sexual assault on campus seriously, according to Emily Martin, VP for education and workplace justice at the National Women's Law Center; by the time of Coney Barrett's opinion in this case, many conservative activists had objected to that Obama-era guidance. The connection Coney Barrett makes in her argument provides some insight into how she views issues of both gender discrimination and sexual assault.
"The idea that taking sexual misconduct seriously suggests sex discrimination against men," Martin says, "is a disturbing way of using the language of sex discrimination as a sword against efforts to address sexual assault."
Kanter v. Barr
The 2019 case Kanter v. Barr concerned gun rights. Rickey Kanter, who owned an orthopedic footwear company, was convicted of mail fraud over false representation of his product. After that conviction, as a felon, he was deemed ineligible to own a gun; he sued over that limitation, arguing that as a non-violent felon the restriction violated his Second Amendment rights.
The majority decided against Kanter, but Coney Barrett dissented. The judge wrote the restriction on a felon owning a gun was too broad—that a felony makes someone eligible to have their Second Amendment right taken away, not that they automatically lose that right. Conviction for nonviolent crimes should not lose a citizen their right to bear arms, the judge said.
The dissent does not seem to reflect a willingness on Coney Barrett's part to restore other kinds of rights—like voting rights—to those who are convicted of felonies. She has argued that voting and jury service are rights for a smaller group of "virtuous citizens," while gun rights should only be restricted based on whether or not a person is dangerous.
