美国能否从独裁的边缘抽身而退？

差不多整整一年。

Almost a calendar year.

没错。

Exactly.

因此，奥巴马提出了一位提名人选，但参议院拒绝确认。

And so Obama came forward with a nominee whom the senate refused to confirm.

他们只是让这件事不了了之。

They just let the thing die.

我的意思是，他们根本就没有采取任何行动。

I mean, they just did not act.

通过这样做，他们为即将上任的下一任总统保留了这个职位。

And in so doing, they saved that position for whoever was gonna be the next occupant of the office.

我在这里故意不提具体人名，是为了强调程序上的不规范，而非个人因素。

I'm doing this with all without proper names to emphasize the procedural irregularities rather than the personalities.

对吧？

Right?

果然，唐纳德·特朗普赢了，他一上任就获得了一个空席位，尽管这个席位本应由奥巴马填补。

And so sure enough, Donald Trump wins, and he gets a free seat as soon as he gets there even though that seat should have been filled by Obama.

好的。

Okay.

然后他们的论点是，我们从不让总统在选举临近时提名任何人，因为我们希望法院能遵循选举结果，诸如此类。

And then the argument was we never let any president nominate someone so close to an election because we want the court to follow the election returns and blah blah.

好的。

Okay.

于是，露丝·巴德·金斯伯格在特朗普任期即将结束时突然去世。

So then what happens is, of course, Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies really right before the end of Trump's term.

但他们并没有重申之前说过的话——即选举临近时出现空缺，我们应该等待选举结果。

And rather than say what they had just said before, which is an opening comes this close to an election, let's wait for the election returns.

他们立即加速了特朗普的提名程序，提名过程和听证会甚至就在总统大选期间进行。

They Trump immediately speeded up a nomination, and the nominations process and the hearing was literally going on during the presidential campaign.

是的。

Yeah.

所以特朗普在即将下台前的最后一刻，成功任命了他的第三位大法官。

So Trump got his third justice in the nick of time right before he was voted out of office.

所以，你知道，如果他们遵循之前对奥巴马法官所坚持的规则，就不应该任命特朗普的第三位法官，但他们在这两点上都做出了妥协，结果特朗普获得了三位法官的任命。

So, you know, if they were following the rule that they were gonna use for the Obama judge, they shouldn't have named the third Trump judge, but they they compromised on both scores, and Trump gets three judges.

这就是你所看到的情况。

That's the kind of thing you see.

正如你刚才谈到的，关于专制政权中法院的行为，你区分了涉及总统权力和专制控制的案件，与涉及个人权利的案件，后者法院可能更倾向于表现出某种程度的独立性，或至少是表面的独立性。

So as you were talking about, you know, how courts behave in autocracies, you know, you distinguish between cases on presidential power and autocratic control on one hand and individual rights on the other, where they might be more inclined to kind of show some signs of independence or at least some superficial appearance of independence.

所以你能详细解释一下这两种案件之间的区别吗？这样我们就能知道，在开始看到更多涉及特朗普政府的裁决时，该留意些什么。

So could you elaborate on the distinction between those two kinds of cases, just so we know what to look for, you know, as we start to see more rulings involving the Trump administration?

是的。

Yeah.

所以我认为我现在最值得关注的案例，当然是出生公民权问题。

So I guess the case I would keep my eye on now is, of course, birthright citizenship.

这显然是特朗普非常希望推动的事情。

That's obviously something Trump really wants.

可以说，他立场的法理支持相当薄弱，正如你一再指出的那样。

The, shall we say, doctrinal support for his position is rather thin, as you've repeatedly said.

说‘相当薄弱’已经是很客气了。

Rather thin is very generous.

这是阅读部分，金。

That's reading part, Kim.

比如，如果

Like, if

你能读的话，这支持很薄弱。

you can read, it's thin.

我正在努力保持礼貌。

I am trying to be diplomatic.

对吧？

Right?

所以那里什么都没有。

And so there's nothing there.

对吧？

Right?

所以，这正是那种他们可能会考虑认输的案件，因为坦白说，他在这件事上赢或输，对他能否永远掌权的影响没那么关键。

And so that's the kind of case where they might deal in the loss because, frankly, whether he wins or loses on that is less crucial to whether he's gonna stay in power forever.

是的。

Yeah.

这是他移民议程的一部分。

It's part of his immigration agenda.

这是他所实施的众多表演性残酷行为之一，而法院已经认可了这些行为。

It's part of a lot of other performative cruelties that he's up to that the court has endorsed already.

但这就是那种你可能会想象他输掉的案件。

But that's the kind of case where you could imagine him, you know, losing.

对吧？

Right?

所以就是这种类型的事情。

So it's that kind of thing.

实际上，我想到了我曾经工作过的某些法院。

And actually, you know, I mean, I'm thinking of some of the courts where I worked.

你知道，当维克托·欧尔班在匈牙利巩固权力时，宪法法院投票支持了他为永久掌权所做的一切举措。

You know, when Viktor Orban was consolidating power in Hungary, the constitutional court voted for everything that he wanted to do to stay in power forever.

而偶尔——这可能是我们即将看到的情况，虽然现在还为时过早——欧尔班会改变主意，但他又不想显得自己退缩。

And then every once in a while, and this may be something we're gonna see coming up, it's too early, but what what would happen is that Orban would change his mind about something, but he didn't want to appear to backtrack.

于是突然间，就会有一起案件提交到法院，法院宣布欧尔班觉得不便的那项措施违宪。

And then suddenly there would be this case that would come to the court, and the court would declare the thing that Orban found inconvenient, unconstitutional.

然后他就会说：我是在遵守法律，但其实这正是他原本就希望法院做的。

And then he would say, I'm following the law, but it was something he wanted them to do anyway.

他通过非正式渠道传递信号，希望法院推翻某项决定。

And he was signaling through back channels he wanted them to override something.

因此，政府越是根深蒂固，就越可能发现有些事情想回头改一改、重新做，而法院正好能帮上这个忙。

So the more entrenched these governments get, the more they may find there are things they wanna backtrack on and redo, and then the court's useful for that.

那么，我们能先暂停一下

Well, can we take a

继续这个话题？

beat on that?

这是一档关于最高法院的播客，显然我们关注的是法院的角色。

This is a Supreme Court podcast, obviously, so we are focusing on the roles of the court.

你刚刚提到了匈牙利欧尔班政权的这个例子。

You just mentioned this example from the Orban regime in Hungary.

在我们的体系中，你是否看到类似的例子？比如总统在撤回某项决定，或想推行某种新举措，而法院似乎通过某种幕后渠道被施加影响来促成此事？还是说这还为时过早？

Are you seeing similar kinds of examples in our system where the president is either backtracking on something or there's some new kind of thing that he wants to do, and there seems to be a kind of back channeling way in which the courts are approached to make this happen, or is that something that is really too far in the offing?

没有。

No.

我认为这种情况实际出现在关税案中。

I the place where I see it is actually in the tariffs case.

所以法院本可以加快这个案件的审理速度。

So the court could have sped that one up.

对吧？

Right?

它只是以一种更正常的节奏在进行。

It's sort of doing that on a more normal schedule.

它在放慢速度。

It's slowing it down.

而特朗普在此期间所做的，是利用其他法律授权重新制定他关心的大部分关税，因此，即使法院最终裁定他败诉以证明其独立性，这也不会有多大影响，因为他已经将他关心的所有关税都转移到了不同的法律依据下。

And what Trump is doing in the meantime is redoing most of the tariffs he cares about under under other legal authorizations so that by the time the court rules against him, which they might to prove they're independent, it won't matter very much because he's actually taken all the tariffs he cares about and put them under different legal headings.

对吧？

Right?

但法院故意放慢步伐，给他时间完成这一操作，然后他们可能会最终对这些关税采取行动，但那时已经无关紧要了。

But the court is slow walking to give him a chance to do that, and then they may hit lower the boom on the tariffs, but it won't matter.

对吧？

Right?

所以你看到这种现象，简直就像是行政分支迈一步，法院迈一步，而他们都在关注着大门。

So you see this kind of, you know, it's almost as if the executive walks with one foot and the court walks with the other, and they're paying attention to the gate.

因此，这是我在这里看到的一个例子。

So that's one place where I kinda see that here.

金，我可以请你跟进一下你在第一个回答中提到的另一件事吗？另一个我们正在见证的、类似于其他地方使用过的操作手册的迹象，就是法院日益依赖影子案卷。

Can I ask you, Kim, to follow-up on something else you said in your first answer, which is another indication that we are seeing unfold something that looks like a playbook used elsewhere is the court's increasing turn to the shadow docket?

我们已经广泛且严厉地讨论过这种缺乏常规程序、不提供理由、未能履行法院应做基本职责的现象。

And we have talked extensively and very critically about the kind of fundamental lack of regular order, failure to give reasons to do the basic things that courts are supposed to do.

对。

Right.

但我觉得我们还没有指出的是，这种情况不仅发生在美最高法院，而且在其他地方也存在类似偏离常规程序或利用这类机制进行创新的举动。

But what I don't think we have brought out is that this is not happening just at the US Supreme Court or that it has certain kind of parallels to moves away from regular order or to innovate using these kinds of mechanisms in other places.

那么，我们是否应该以更广泛的视角来看待影子案卷，而不仅仅将其视为与最高法院以往工作方式的重大背离？

So so should we understand the shadow docket in broader terms than just as a real break with the way this Supreme Court has typically done its work?

是的。

Yeah.

我认为绝对如此。

So I I think absolutely.

原因有两个。

So for two reasons.

我的意思是，程序上的捷径常常是不显山露水地做出实质性决定的方式，我在其他法院也见过这种情况，比如它们突然声称对原本一直有管辖权的案件没有管辖权，从而让某事得以推进。

I mean, one is that procedural outs are very often ways of making substantive decisions without appearing to make substantive decisions, and that's something I've seen in other courts where suddenly they decide they don't have jurisdiction to hear something they've always had jurisdiction to hear, allowing the thing to proceed, for example.

所以，我们在这里看到的一个现象，我曾为《反主流》写过一篇专栏，叫《最高法院下令煮鱼汤》。

So, you know, one of the things that we see here, I wrote a column on this for the contrarian called the supreme court orders fish soup.

是的。

Yes.

我们引用过这个说法。

We've cited that.

这太惊人了。

It's it's amazing.

是的。

Yes.

知道。

Know.

真的超爱这个说法。

Truly love it.

是的。

Yeah.

就像是，你知道的，如果法院解除禁令并允许破坏发生，他们表面上似乎没有对实质问题作出裁决，也没有根本改变既定法律，但等到他们最终决定这些问题时，可能就会发现，哦，原来某个机构本不该被撤销——这可能是另一个类似的情况。

It's like, you know, if if if basically, if the court is lifting stays and allowing the destruction to happen, They appear not to have ruled on the merits and not to have fundamentally changed settled law, but by the time they get around to deciding questions, and they may well this could be another one of those areas where they may decide, you know, oops, you know, an agency shouldn't have been canceled when they get to the merits.

但已经什么都没了。

But there's nothing left.

只剩下废墟了。

There's just rubble.

对吧？

Right?

因此，由于他们允许破坏继续进行，实际上限制了在最终作出裁决时可能提供的救济手段。

And so because they're allowing the destruction to proceed, they're actually limiting the remedies that may be made available when they finally make the decisions.

对吧？

Right?

所以我长期以来一直撰写关于美国（主要是关塔那摩案件）和其他国家的内容，当法院在政治压力下面临两方对立、又不想显得偏向任何一方时，往往会把规则判给一方，而把救济措施留给另一方。

So one thing I've written a lot about in context of The US, mostly the Guantanamo cases and other countries, is that when courts are pressed politically between two competing sides and they really don't want to appear to be partisan to one side or the other, they'll give one side the rule and the other side the remedies.

例如，在所有关塔那摩案件中，当新闻头条写着‘法院教训了布什’，对吧？

So for example, in all the Guantanamo cases, you know, when the headlines read, you know, court slaps around Bush, right?

但当你仔细看实际提起诉讼的人发生了什么，结果总是比他们开始之前更糟。

When you looked at what happened to the actual people who brought the cases, it was always something worse than before they started.

是的。

Yeah.

就是这种状况。

It's that kind of thing.

因此，我们在这里可能看到的是相反的情况，对吧？特朗普会因为在影子法庭上的行动而赢得救济，而他们最终可能会就实质问题作出一些裁决，但这些裁决根本无关紧要，因为无论他们决定什么，都已经被摧毁了。

And so what we might find here is this in reverse, right, which is Trump is gonna win on the remedies because of what's happening on the shadow docket, and then they may actually come out with some cases on the merits, which won't matter at all because whatever it is they decide will have already been destroyed.

对吧？

Right?

所以也要留意这种在许多法院中发生的情况。

So look also for this kind of thing that happens in lots of courts.

一方获得规则，另一方获得救济。

One side gets the rule, the other side gets the remedy.

所以，这是一个我经常被问到的问题，我知道我们之前私下也稍微聊过：当法院不可避免地在某些案件中裁定反对唐纳德·特朗普时——无论是关税案还是出生公民权案——我们是不是都得认错，因为这一切其实都是法院精心策划的宏大计划，目的是积累足够的资本，最终对特朗普做出不利判决？

So this is a question that I often receive, and I know we have talked a little bit offline about, which is in the event or when the court inevitably rules against Donald Trump in some of these cases, be it the tariff case, be it birthright citizenship, won't, you know, we all have to eat crow because this will all be reflective of some grand master plan by which the court accumulated the capital necessary to rule against Donald Trump.

法院只是低调行事，等待合适的时机出手，而这一切铺垫只是为了最终站出来表态。

It was just keeping its head down, right, waiting for the right case to do so, and it just had to do all of this to take a stand.

难道你不高兴他们先给了特朗普整整一年他想要的一切，然后才保护了出生公民权吗？

And aren't you so happy that they just gave Trump everything he wanted for a year and then protected birthright citizenship?

当别人问你这种问题时，你会怎么回答？

I guess, what do you say when you get those kinds of questions?

因为我就想把头发扯掉。

Because I just wanna pull my hair out.

是的。

Yeah.

这正是匈牙利法院在被全面操控后所做的事。

Well, this is what the Hungarian court did after it was packed.

这正是俄罗斯法院在被全面操控后所做的事。

This is what the Russian court did after it was packed.

你知道，这就是政治任命法院的做法。

You know, this is what PAC courts do.

对吧？

Right?

它们必须让人看起来不像纯粹的政治工具。

It's that they have to make it look like they aren't just politicians.

因此，它们会找出哪些案件可以裁决，既能允许独裁者继续掌权并巩固他所关心的一切，又能让自己看起来像司法独立、超然于政治纷争之外。

And so they're gonna figure out what are the cases that we can actually decide that will allow the autocrat to continue in power and to continue to consolidate everything he cares about while still us appearing judicial and above the fray.

所以事实上，这正是那种精心挑选的做法，你知道，它们会挑出几个案件，然后会发生什么？

So in fact, it's exactly that, you know, cherry picked kind of approach, you know, where they're gonna they're gonna be a couple cases, and then what'll happen?

你会明白的。

You'll know this.

我的意思是，我们所有的法学教授同行都会说：看吧？

I mean, all of our law professor colleagues will say, you see?

罗伯茨确实是个注重制度的人，或者所谓的影子法庭并没有预示出实质性裁决将如何发展。

Roberts really was an institutionalist, or really the shadow docket didn't, you know, foreshadow what was gonna happen on the merits.

而且，你知道，有这么多，这里既有好处也有坏处。

And, you know, and and there's so many and and here's the here's the good thing and the bad thing about that.

对吧？

Right?

我们有那么多同事和专门研究最高法院的人，他们非常依赖于相信法律仍在运行。

We have so many colleagues and people who specialize in focusing on the supreme court who have so much at stake in believing that law is still going on.

你知道吗？

You know?

是的。

Yes.

每一个这样的迹象都会被当作希望，认为毕竟，上次我们看到法律死亡时，它并没有真的消亡。

And every little sign of it will be taken as hope that, in fact, you know, the whole thing didn't die, you know, in the last decision where we saw it die.

明白吗？

Okay?

所以让我坦白一件事：自从布什诉戈尔案以来，我就没再教过美国宪法学。

So so let me confess something, which is that I haven't taught American constitutional law since Bush v Gore.

好的。

Okay.

我就像矿井里的金丝雀。

I have like, I'm the canary in the mineshaft.

我当时就退出了。

I got out then.

我参与了那个案件。

I worked on that case.

我在塔拉哈西。

I was in Tallahassee.

我当时在处理如果法院做出相反判决可能会出现的后续工作，你就能明显看出，这个案件中法院只是愿意为共和党投票。

I was working on what would have been the sequel if the court had gone the other way, and you could just see that that was a case in which the court was willing to simply vote Republican.

共和党。

Republican.

是的。

Yeah.

我们有一个继续单纯为共和党投票的法院。

And we have a court that is continuing to simply vote Republican.

否则，如何解释德克萨斯州的选区划分案？

How else to make sense out of the Texas gerrymander case?

如果他们在加利福尼亚案中基于某种捏造的理论作出相反判决，那么这显然是一家在所有关乎巩固行政权力的关键案件中主要为共和党投票的法院。

And if they come out with the opposite result in California on on the basis of some made up doctrine, I mean, this is a court that is mostly voting Republican on all the cases that are crucial to the consolidation of executive power.

我不愿这么说，因为你知道，我有时是个政治学家。

And I hate to say that because, you know, I'm sometimes a political scientist.

我有时是个法学教授。

I'm sometimes a law professor.

作为法学教授的我想说，他们仍在进行法律工作，但我认为他们早就离开了那艘船。

The law professor in me wants to say they're still doing law, but I think they got off that boat a long time ago.

我认为我们现在的处境就是这样，他们偶尔会做一些类似法律的事情，只是为了逗我们玩，让我们继续相信他们。

And I think that's where we are, and they will occasionally do law like things just to kinda tease us and bring us on board.

我们难道没有都约会过那种人吗？

Haven't we all dated guys who did that?

对吧？

Right?

他们太糟糕了，然后还稍微给你点暗示，好像之后又爱你了。

They're just terrible, and then they kinda give you, like, the little hint that maybe they love you after.

你是在说我们是‘面包屑’。

Breadcrumbers is what you're telling us.

他们是面包屑。

They're breadcrumbers.

这只是

It's just

就像游说一样。

like it's lobbying.

就像渣男一样。

It's just like bad boyfriends.

对吧？

Right?

好吧。

Alright.

我完全觉得，他们早就跳上了违法的船。

I'm so like, the whole idea that they've jumped the law boat a long time ago.

我甚至觉得他们根本就没下船。

I I don't even think they jumped off.

我认为皮特·赫格塞斯早就把法律之船给击沉了。

I think Pete Hegseth torpedoed the law boat a long time ago.

我们有很多事情。

We have many things.

我真的很感兴趣于他们利用其 merits 做法庭裁决来为自己换取一些好感，巩固自身资本，尽管他们的影子法庭裁决早已瓦解了这一切。

I am actually really interested in this idea of them using their merits docket decisions to sort of buy themselves some goodwill, consolidate capital for themselves even as their shadow docket decisions have already dismantled the thing.

对吧？

Right?

所以我正是在想教育部。

So I'm thinking precisely of the Department of Education.

我的意思是，如果他们后来回来声称那完全是违法的，那又怎样？

Like, you know, so what if they come back later and say that was completely unlawful?

他们已经解散了教育部。

Like, they've dismantled the Department of Education.

要重建它需要大量的工作。

It's going to take a lot of work to rebuild that.

你有没有想过这样一种情况：他们可能会回过头来做出一些基于 merits 的裁决，但裁定反对总统，而那时已经换了一个新政府，因此影响反而更糟糕？

Do you ever see a scenario where they might come back with some of these merit decisions but rule against the president, but there's actually a new administration in place, and so the impact is doubly bad?

是的。

Yeah.

但他们已经这么做了，你知道的，这让我从比较的角度看到了另一件事。

Well, they've already done that, you know, and this is something, I mean, something else I've seen in comparative perspective.

他们可能会突然决定，公务员体系在所有特朗普任命的人完全渗透之后，还是要保留下来。

They may suddenly decide that the civil service will be dug in after all of the Trump appointees have infiltrated themselves all the way through.

这种情况几乎在每一个威权巩固发生的国家都会出现，因为你会发现，前政府的忠诚者会深埋进受保护的职位中，然后新的民主政府上台后，法院却说：不行，不行，不行。

This happens this happens in almost every place where autocratic consolidation has occurred because you'll find that the that the loyalists to the prior government burrow themselves into protected positions, then the new pro democratic government comes in, and the courts say, no, no, no.

你无法触及这些职位，因为它们受到缓冲和保护。

You can't touch all those offices because they're buffered and protected.

突然间，我们会恢复因故解雇或公务员制度，以让这些人继续扎根其中。

Suddenly, we'll get back for cause dismissals or civil service or something to keep the people burrowed in.

所以我完全预料到这种情况会发生。

So I completely expect that to happen.

现在我担心的是，我们不会再有另一个政府了。

Now what I'm worried about is that we don't get another government.

我的意思是，我知道这么说不太好，但我对这件事确实持更悲观的态度。

I mean, I'm you know, I hate to say this, but I'm really on the more pessimistic side of this.

欢迎来到

Welcome to the

节目，金。

show, Kim.

我知道。

I know.

我担心2028年的局势。

I'm worried about situation about 2028.

我的意思是，我认为完全不能确定我们不会迎来特朗普的第三个任期，也完全不能确定我们会有自由公正的中期选举。

I mean, I think it's absolutely not at all clear that we won't get a third term of Trump, and I think it's absolutely not clear that we'll have free and fair midterms.

而且我认为我们对这一点关注不够，对那些正在进行的基础设施工作关注不够，德克萨斯州的选区划分案只是一个小小的迹象。是的。

And I think we're not paying enough attention to that, to all the infrastructural work going into that, and the Texas gerrymander case is just a little sign Yeah.

我们不会从法院得到太多帮助。

That we're not gonna get much help from the courts.

是的。

Yeah.

从这个法庭。

From this court.

是的。

Yeah.

我的意思是，我觉得每次媒体松了一口气说，迈克·约翰逊压制了第三任期的讨论，我们就不用再担心了。

I mean, I I think every time the sort of the press kind of breathes a sigh of relief and says, well, he Mike Johnson tamped down the third term talk, we don't have to worry about it anymore.

我只是想，我们到底在做什么？

I'm just like, what what are we doing here?

我的意思是，当然我们要

Like, of course, we

必须

have to

担心这个问题。

worry about this.

在椭圆形办公室接待每一位来访的独裁者时，都送他们特朗普2028的帽子。

Giving out Trump twenty twenty eight hats to every dictator that visits him in the Oval Office.

没错。

Absolutely.

这些周边商品甚至在白宫里出售，真让人震惊。

They're selling this merch in the White House get shot.

我们必须

We have to

我们必须非常认真地对待这件事，没错。

take this extremely seriously Yeah.

而且现在就要行动。

And and to do it now.

我完全同意。

I completely agree.

我想提一个问题，也许这个前提过于乐观了，但我还是想提出来。

Well, so I wanted to ask a question that that maybe the premise is unduly optimistic, but I'm gonna pose it anyway.

我们一直大量讨论匈牙利和欧尔班这个比较案例，你显然是这方面的专家。

And that is we've been talking a lot about the kind of comparative example of Hungary and Orban, which obviously you're an enormous expert in.

不过，我想请你也稍微谈谈你在巴西背景下的比较见解。

I wanted to ask you, though, to also bring out a little bit your comparative expertise in the context of Brazil.

针对博索纳罗的指控，我认为是追究试图推翻政府责任的一个非常重要的例子，这显然与美国的经验有某种共鸣。

And the case against Bolsonaro is, I think, a really important example of accountability for trying to overthrow a government, so obviously, has certain resonance to the American experience.

最高法院

And The Supreme Court

没有在Shatterdocket上继续起诉。

didn't stay prosecution on the Shatterdocket.

并没有令人惊叹。

Didn't wow.

所以我们应该对此给予极大的认可。

And so we should give them enormous credit for that.

没错。

Exactly.

没错。

Exactly.

他们试图，你知道，特朗普曾尝试过。

They try you know, Trump tried.

是的。

Yeah.

他们制裁了主审法官。

They sanctioned the judge presiding over the trial.

我当时就在现场，亲眼目睹了那件事。

I was there when that happened.

是的。

Yeah.

所以我希望你能谈谈这一点，因为我觉得这整个故事相当离奇。

So I do want you to talk about that because I think that's all a pretty wild story.

但我也认为，如果我们有朝一日能走出这段时期——正如你所说，这本身就是一个很大的假设——届时一定会出现关于是否以及如何追究责任的激烈争论。

But I also think taking a step back, if we are ever on the other side of this, which I think you're right is a big if, there will be, I think, enormous debates and questions about whether and how to seek accountability.

显然，即使是一些左翼人士，也可能出于善意认为，特朗普的支持者们真的觉得他遭到了针对，而这在某种程度上导致了我们今天的处境。

There are obviously people, I think, even on the left who think, you know, maybe in good faith that Trump supporters actually feel like he was targeted and that in some ways is responsible for where we are.

我绝不是在支持这种观点。

I in no way I'm endorsing that.

我只是说，将来一定会有关于这一点的争论：是采取干净利落、面向未来的姿态更有利于民主与宪政的恢复，还是必须进行追溯性的问责。

I am just saying there will be debates about Yeah.

是否应该采取一种干净利落、面向未来的姿态，更有利于民主与宪政的恢复，还是必须进行追溯性的问责。

Whether a clean break and forward looking kind of posture is better for democratic and constitutional restoration or whether backward looking accountability is required.

所以欢迎你对此发表看法，但我只是好奇，如果我们幸运到真能迎来这些讨论的话，你对博索纳罗在这些未来辩论中的角色有何看法。

So welcome to, you know, weigh in on that, but I am just curious about sort of what you think about Bolsonaro in the context of those likely future debates if we are lucky enough to ever be having them.

是的。

Yeah.

首先，这可能是另一种情况：系统有效运转，我们发布赦免令，就像水门事件那样。

Well, so first of all, it could be another the system worked and we issue a pardon, which is the Watergate scenario.

对吧？

Right?

那巴西发生了什么？

So what happened in Brazil?

他们建立了一个具有韧性的宪法体系，因为他们曾经经历过独裁统治。

So what they have is a constitutional system built for resilience because they had a dictatorship before.

是的。

Yeah.

因此，当我们展望未来时，我认为我们还需要考虑制度性改革，因为届时会留下大量废墟，而试图把一切修补回原样是没有意义的。

So as we think about stuff going forward, I think we also need to think about institutional reform because we're gonna have a lot of rubble, and there's no point in trying to patch it back the way it was.

所以巴西能够这样做，是因为许多现代宪法，尤其是那些从独裁体制中诞生的宪法，都设立了所谓的第四分支机构。

So the reason why they could do this in Brazil is that many modern constitutions, particularly ones in dictatorship, have what they call fourth branch institutions.

第四分支机构与政治影响隔离开来，就像法院本应被隔离开来一样。

And fourth branch institutions are walled off from political influence, kind of the way courts are supposed to be, walled off from political influence.

在巴西，联邦警察和联邦检察官就是第四分支机构。

And in Brazil, the federal police and the federal prosecutor are fourth branch institutions.

因此，当博索纳罗试图推翻政府时，他们发现了一个阴谋，这个阴谋比我们在1月8日看到的还要恶劣得多，而1月8日的事件只是我们1月6日事件的翻版。

So when Bolsonaro tried to overthrow the government, there was a plot that they uncovered which was far worse than what we saw on their January 8, which was a copy of our January 6.

他们甚至计划毒杀总统，并枪杀一名最高法院大法官。

They literally had a plan to poison the president and shoot one of the Supreme Court justices.

事实上，如果不是因为原本要被枪杀的莫拉埃什法官那天回家晚了，而刺客们正等在他家门外，他们早就动手了。

In fact, they would have done it already by the time they uncovered the plot except that Morayash, the judge they were gonna shoot, happened not to come home on time the day that the assassins were waiting outside his house.

好吧。

Okay.

于是联邦警察揭发了这一阴谋。

So the federal police uncovered this plot.

他们收集了所有证据。

They put together all the evidence.

他们公布了所有证据。

They published all the evidence.

他们在十一月公布了完整的警方档案。

They published the entire police dossier in November.

然后案件移交到检察官办公室，由他们决定是否提起指控——这是一个政治上独立的检察官，不是我们的司法部。

It went then to the prosecutor's office who had to decide whether to bring charges, politically buffered prosecutor, not our DOJ.

对吧？

Right?

随后，这个政治上独立的检察官发布了一份详细的起诉书，说明了根据警方发现的事实将提出哪些指控。

And the politically buffered prosecutor then came out with a detailed indictment explaining what charges would follow from what the police had found.

检察官审查了这份档案，提出了详细的起诉书，而如果涉案的是国家元首，这类案件将直接由最高法院作为初审法院审理，最高法院必须根据案卷和起诉书决定是否受理此案。

The prosecutor then looked over this file, brought forward a detailed indictment, and then the way these cases go if it's a head of state is they go to the Supreme Court for first instance trial, and the Supreme Court has to decide whether to take the case based on the record and the indictment.

这也是一个独立机构。

Also, an independent institution.

所以你有三个独立的机构。

So you've got three independent institutions.

所有这些都在公众视野中进行。

All of it was being done in public.

审判公开到极致。

The trial was so much in public.

这里有一件关于巴西最高法院的惊人之事，如果你还不知道的话。

Here's one one outrageous thing about the Brazilian Supreme Court in case you don't know it.

他们不仅在公开场合进行口头辩论。

They don't just have oral arguments in public.

他们不仅在公开场合进行审判。

They don't just run the trial in public.

他们还在公开场合进行合议。

They deliberate in public.

他们拥有自己的电视频道。

They have their own TV channels.

人们都在观看这些内容。

People watch this stuff.

他们进来后，是的，他们的审议是公开进行的。

They come in, and, yes, they deliberate in public.

因此，他们能够作出这一判决，认定博索纳罗有罪。

And so they were able to reach this judgment, finding Bolsonaro guilty.

他被判处二十七年监禁。

He was sentenced to twenty seven years in prison.

但问题就在这里。

But here's the problem.

巴西和美国一样，仍然是一个五五开的分裂国家。

Brazil, like The US, is still a fiftyfifty split country.

明年将举行选举，博索纳罗的支持者很可能赢得参议院。

There's an election next year, and Bolsonaro's people may well win the Senate.

他们有一个像我们那样的上议院，代表各地区，参议院只需简单多数票（无需另一院参与）即可弹劾最高法院法官，而所有民调都显示，博索纳罗可能在明年赢得参议院，届时这些法官可能全部被撤职。

They have a upper chamber like we do, which represents the regions, and the Senate needs only a simple majority without the involvement of the other house to impeach judges of the Supreme Court, and all the polls are showing that Bolsonaro might win the senate next year, in which case all these judges may be gone.

明白吗？

Okay?

所以在你认为这是重大转折之前，没错。

So before you say this is the great turnaround Yeah.

还有，这是一个很好的例子。我们都知道，经历过专制时期的一些国家，要实现恢复极其困难，因为这些专制者的支持者依然存在。

And the great example, One thing that we know about countries that have had these episodes of autocracy is that it's extremely hard to come back because the supporters of these autocrats are still around.

他们潜伏下来。

They burrow in.

他们占据关键节点。

They occupy choke points.

他们仍然能赢得选举。

They can still win elections.

因此，巴西是一个很好的例子——那些发挥作用的制衡机构，但也是一个糟糕的例子，因为它们让弹劾法官变得过于容易。

And so Brazil is a great example, buffering institutions that did their work, and a bad example because they made it very easy to impeach judges.

所以这是一个复杂的故事。

So it's a mixed story.

金，

Kim,

并非所有受到这些法律专制主义者攻击的政府都会跃过悬崖，滑向专制。

not all governments that come under attack from these legalistic autocrats actually jump the shark and tip into autocracy.

有些政府能够从悬崖边退回来。

Some of them pull back from the brink.

那么，你可以采取哪些措施来让你的民主重回正轨，确保它未来继续作为民主存在？

So what are some of the steps that you can take to put your democracy back on the path to being a democracy, to keep it a democracy going forward?

我们现在正在做其中任何一项吗？

And are we doing any of those things right now?

简短的回答是：没有。

Now the short answer is no.

我们根本没有采取这些措施。

So we're not doing any of those things.

事实上，即使那些看起来已经扭转局面的政府，也发现很难做到。

And in fact, even the governments that look like they've turned around find it very hard.

另一个扭转局势的例子是波兰，那里经历了八年的专制操控。

So another one that turned around is Poland, where they had eight years of autocratic capture.

他们严重破坏了司法独立性。

They really destroyed the independence of judiciary.

大约有3000名法官是因政治忠诚而被任命的。

There are about 3,000 judges who have been appointed because they're political loyalists.

最高法院已被控制。

The Supreme Court's been captured.

我的意思是，整个司法系统都出了大问题。

I mean, just the whole system, judicial system, is really amiss.

新政府上台了。

New government comes in.

他们打算采取措施进行改变。

They're gonna do something to change it.

他们通过了一项法律。

They pass a law.

总统是前政府的遗留人物，他否决了这项法案。

The president, who's a hangover from the prior government, vetoes it.

于是他们尝试其他无法被否决的行政措施，但这个宪法法院却裁定这些措施违宪。

So then they try other things, executive actions that can't be vetoed, and then this pact constitutional court says it's unconstitutional.

因此，他们一直无法克服这个受操控的司法体系。

So they haven't been able to do anything to overcome this pact judiciary.

他们无法兑现选举时的承诺，因此支持率下降，极有可能专制者会重新上台。

They can't do what they said they would do with their election promises, so they're losing popularity, and it's probably the case that the autocrats will come back.

在这种情况下，事情非常困难。

It's very hard in these circumstances.

那么你能做些什么呢？

So what can you do?

你可以做的就是提前把事情设计得防傻瓜化。

The thing you can do is try to idiot proof things before they happen.

我们正在看到，比如在德国，事实上，我们已经错过了这样的机会。

So we're seeing, like, in Germany, which we lost the chance to do, frankly.

我的意思是，很多我们在拜登执政最后几天就讨论过，当时就能看出这事迟早要发生。

I mean, a lot of us were talking, you know, in the last days of Biden when you could see that this was going to happen.

我们本可以做些事情，但没做。

There were things we could have done and didn't.

让我给你一个很好的例子：德国现在看到，极右翼政党AFDE很可能在议会中对宪法法院法官的任命拥有否决权。

So let me give you a good example, which is Germany sees now that the AFDE, the far right party, is likely to have a blocking vote in the parliament for constitutional judges to the court.

所以在AFDE获得否决权之前，他们修改了宪法，基本上消除了这种阻挠威胁——规定需要三分之二多数票。

So what they did before AFT got the blocking vote was they amended the constitution to essentially eliminate the threat of the blockage by saying, okay, we need a two thirds vote.

如果几轮投票都达不到这个票数，就转由上议院投票，同样需要三分之二多数。

If we don't get it on several rounds, then it will switch and go to the upper house, and they get to vote by two thirds.

他们提前设计了一个应对即将来临阻挠的机制，这意味着AFDE现在无法再阻挠法官进入宪法法院。

So they developed a trapdoor around the block they could see coming, and that means the Avde can't block judges going on to the constitutional court now.

他们抢在问题发生前就采取了行动。

They got out ahead of it.

我们早就该这么做了。

We should have done it already.

你知道，要弄清楚如何挽回局面将是一场真正的斗争，但正因如此，我们需要提前思考：我们能做哪些可行的政治举措，以便一旦有机会重建得更好时，我们不会重建出同样的东西，而是真正重建得更好，从而不再陷入自动被操控的境地。

You know, it's going to be a real struggle to figure out how to get this back, but this is why we need to think ahead a little bit to how we can figure out, you know, what are the plausible political things we can do so that if we ever get the chance to build back better, we don't build back the same, and we build back better enough that we can't again fall back into automatic capture.

这就是挑战所在。

That's the challenge.

好的。

Alright.

金，我们希望你在2026年某个时候能回来，和我们进行一次更具前瞻性的对话，探讨我们可以采取哪些具体步骤，逐步摆脱困境，同时防止问题重演。

Well, Kim, we are gonna ask that you come back at some point in the year 2026 and have a more forward looking conversation with us about some of the concrete steps we can take to start to claw our way out and also to guard against recurrence.

但你刚才的概述非常深刻且富有价值，我们非常感谢你抽出时间与我们交流。

But that was an incredibly sobering and useful overview, and we're so grateful to you for taking the time to be with us.

在你离开之前，你知道，作为听众，我们一直试图以更乐观、更有希望，或至少是建设性的方式结束我们的对话，推荐一些阅读材料。

Before we let you go, as you know, as a listener, we have been trying to end our conversations on kind of a more optimistic and hopeful note or at least a constructive note by recommending things to read.

我知道你有很多推荐书目。

And I know you've got a lot of recommendations.

你能否分享几本与我们今天讨论内容相关的、有启发性的读物？

So would you mind sharing a few things that would be kind of instructive on the stuff that we've been talking about?

是的。

Yeah.

其中一篇让我深受启发的文章，我刚刚布置给我的学生，以给予他们希望和愿景，作者是一位名叫杰拉尔德·波斯蒂马的法律哲学家，他发表在《司法》上的一篇短文，我认为这是一本面向公众的杂志。

So one of these really inspirational pieces that I read that I just assigned to my students to give them hope and a vision, there's a legal philosopher named Gerald Postima, and he wrote this short piece in judicature, which I think is a public access magazine.

这篇文章名为《危难时刻的法治与近乎神圣的责任》，直击我们思考‘捍卫法治’时真正所指的核心。

It's called The Rule of Law in Times of Peril and Almost Sacred Responsibility, and it cuts to the heart of what it is that we mean when we think that we're defending the rule of law.

这篇文章非常鼓舞人心。

It's just inspirational.

当你迷失方向时，它会告诉你哪个方向是上。

In case you lose your way, it tells you which end is up again.

这真是一篇美妙的文章。

It's really a lovely piece.

很好。

Great.

另外，你知道，在我们开始录音前，我们稍微聊了聊。

And the other thing, you know, I we were talking a little bit before we started the recording.

现在有很多地方法院和上诉法院的法官认为，最高法院将把我们引向深渊。

There are a lot of judges now in the district and and appellate courts who see that the supreme court is gonna lead us into the ditch.

是的。

Yeah.

他们已经决定直接面向公众撰写判决意见。

And they've just decided to write for the public.

是的。

Yeah.

他们甚至不是写给最高法院看的。

They're not even writing for the supreme court.

我认为我们可以做的一件事是，整理一份精选集，收录一些面向公众撰写的、旨在提醒人们为何重视宪政和法治的判决。

And I think one thing we might do is think about let's compile a greatest hits, right, of some of the decisions that are written for a general public that are really designed to remind people of why we care about constitutionalism and the rule of law.

我这里有几个推荐案例，比如威尔金森法官在去年三月的《阿布雷戈·加西亚案》中的判决，还有美国大学教授协会诉鲁比奥案，那个判决开篇就有一手写的便条，上面写着‘特朗普说坦克有坦克和赦免’。

So a couple of my nominees here, Judge Wilkinson in the Abrego Garcia case from, I think it was last March, AAUP versus Rubio, that's the one that starts with the handwritten note saying Trump says tank have tanks and pardons.

你有什么推荐的吗？

What do you have?

我必须说，上个学期我把这个案例给了我的国际法学生，他们说：法官还能这样写判决？

I must say I gave this to my international law students this past semester, and they said, judges can write like that?

我说，你知道的，当船要沉没时，你必须引起人们的注意，但整个判决内容都值得一看。

And I said, well, you know, when the ship's going down, you gotta get people's attention, but the whole opinion's worth it.

最近，芝加哥的埃利斯法官在《头条俱乐部诉诺姆》案中，详细记录了移民与海关执法局在芝加哥的所有行为，并发布了所有政府声称未曾发生过的ICE行动视频。

Most recently, judge Ellis in Chicago headline club versus Noam, which is the one where she documents everything ICE has been doing in Chicago and posts the videos of all of the of all the things that ICE is doing that the government said they weren't doing.

我们可以简单地整理出这些判决中的经典案例，你知道的，一些最出色的作品。

And we can just, like, come up with the greatest hits, you know, of some of these decisions.

然后，如果我可以带你们回到更黑暗的时期，因为有时候这会有帮助。

And then if I can take you back to darker times because sometimes it helps.

如果你想回顾，我这里有几个关键的案例。

If you wanna go back, a couple of touchstones for me.

所以我们现在回到沃伦时代。

So we're in the wall Lane.

对吧？

Right?

所以，如果你想了解法西斯主义在逼近时是什么样子，该读些什么？

So if you wanna read, what does fascism look like when it's closing in?

好吧。

Okay.

这并不太乐观，但你知道，恩斯特·弗兰克尔的《双重国家》是一本非常重要的读物。

That's not very optimistic, but, you know, Ernst Frankel's the dual state is just a very important read.

他是一位犹太律师。

He's a Jewish lawyer.

他于1938年在柏林写下了这本书。

He writes this in 1938 in Berlin.

他已经不能继续执业了。

He can't practice law anymore.

但他看到，对于绝大多数德国人来说，法律体系看起来依然正常。

But what he sees is that for the vast majority of Germans, the legal system looks normal.

但总有一些人被单独挑出来，消失不见，被区别对待——而这正是我们现在所处的情况。

But then there are these people who are just getting picked out and disappeared, picked out and handled differently, which is exactly where we are here.

对吧？

Right?

然后他说，所谓的规范国家就是一切看起来都正常。

And then he says, look, what there is is what he calls a normative state where everything looks normal.

你醒来，但世界并没有天翻地覆，每个人都觉得没问题，继续照常生活，而有些人却被单独挑出来。

You wake up, but the world hasn't turned on its head, and everybody goes along thinking no problem, and then there are these people singled out.

他说，人们之所以能被单独挑出来，是因为其他人都觉得他们所看到的是正常的。

The reason why people can get singled out, he says, is because everyone else thinks it's normal, what they see.

对吧？

Right?

这种双重国家的逻辑，正是法律用来掩盖显而易见之事的方式。

And so this dual state logic is how the law works to cover up what's happening in plain sight.

所以这本必读。

So mandatory read.

汉娜·阿伦特的《极权主义的起源》也是一本绝佳的读物。

Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism is also a great read.

所以我有一整份令人沮丧的书单，下次我们可以聊聊我们的出路。

So I have a whole list of depressing books, And then we can talk actually next time if we're gonna talk about Our Ways Out.

有很多很棒的书，讲的是你能做些什么，还有各种抗议形式。

There are all these wonderful books about, you know, what you can do and and, yeah, forms of protest.

我丈夫在苏联长大，所以我们有很多很好的例子。

My husband grew up in the Soviet Union, so we got a lot of good examples.

人们站在街角，举着苏联宪法的引文。

People standing on street corners holding up quotations from the Soviet constitution.

政府在说，我们能因为他说这些话而逮捕他吗？

The government was saying, can we arrest them for saying that?

你知道的。

You know?

所以也许我们可以试试这个。

So maybe we could try that.

总之，我们可以做的有很多。

Anyway, lots of things we can do.

金，这再次令人深思，但正是我们迎接2026年所需要的那种醍醐灌顶的启示。

Kim, this was, again, very sobering, but exactly the kind of eye opener that we need heading into 2026.

非常感谢你加入我们。

So thanks so much for joining us.

很高兴你在这里，等你准备好了，我们非常欢迎你再次回来。

It's great to have you here, and we'd love to have you back whenever you're ready.

很好。

Great.

很期待在其他地方见到你们，你们的播客对我们所有人来说都是一份礼物。

Love to see you guys, here elsewhere, and your podcast is such a gift to all of us.

谢谢。

Thanks.

听众们，别走开。

Listeners, don't go anywhere.

虽然金给我们留下了一个关于如何反击的悬念，但在下一环节，我将采访一位一直在领导这场抗争的人——民主前进组织的总裁兼首席执行官斯凯·佩里曼。

While Kim left us on a cliffhanger about how to fight back, next segment, I'll be talking to someone who has been leading that fight, Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward.

《严格审查》由Zbiotics赞助播出。

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Zbiotics.

今年，我专注于一个微小的改变，却能带来巨大的不同。

This year, I'm focusing on a small shift that makes a huge difference.

无意识的在场感。

Effortless presence.

这听起来反直觉，但对我而言，这意味着提前做好规划，以便真正活在当下，尤其是在享受几杯酒的时候。

It sounds counterintuitive, but for me, that means planning ahead so I can truly live in the moment, especially when enjoying a few drinks.

我保持平衡的简单方法是在喝酒前服用Zbiotics。

My simple trick for staying balanced is taking zebiotics pre alcohol before I had my first drink.

我在克鲁克德大会玩得非常开心。

I had such a good time at Crooked Con.

我参加了派对后庆祝，第二天一早醒来感觉神清气爽。

I got to celebrate at the after party and wake up fresh the next day.

所以我知道，当我想要外出狂欢时，必须继续坚持使用Zbiotics。

So I know I need to keep up with this whole zebiotics thing when I want a night out.

所以，我的做法是规划一个平衡的夜晚，以确保第二天早晨状态良好，而我依靠Zbiotics前酒精饮品来实现这一目标。

So my shift is planning a balanced night out to ensure a high quality morning after, and I rely on Zbiotics pre alcohol to support that goal.

Zbiotics前酒精益生菌饮料是世界上第一款基因工程益生菌产品。

Zbiotics pre alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic.

它由博士科学家研发，旨在缓解饮酒后的不适早晨。

It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking.

以下是它的原理。

Here's how it works.

当你饮酒时，酒精会在肠道中转化为一种有毒的代谢产物。

When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut.

导致饮酒后状态糟糕的，正是这种代谢产物的积累，而不是脱水。

It's a buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for rough days after drinking.

前酒精饮品会产生一种酶，用以分解这种代谢产物。

Pre alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down.

请记住，要把前酒精饮品作为当晚的第一杯饮品，适量饮酒，这样你明天会感觉更好。

Just remember to make pre alcohol your first drink of the night, drink responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow.

说实话，我在Crooked Con的经历让我意识到，我依然可以喝酒，第二天照样精神饱满。

Seriously, my experience at Crooked Con reminded me I can still have a drink and have my next day.

各位，我喝了好几杯龙舌兰酒。

You guys, I had tequila drinks multiple.

而且在喝Zbiotic饮品之后，我第二天依然感觉棒极了。

And with my Zbiotic drink beforehand, I still felt awesome the next day.

看吧。

Look.

我不骗你们。

I won't lie.

我之前对Pre Alcohol半信半疑，但当我们都在Crooked Con喝完Zbiotics之后再喝真正的酒时，我才真正意识到它确实有效。

I was a bit on the fence about pre alcohol, but after we all took shots of our Zbiotics before our actual drinks at Crooked Con, it's a reminder that it's the real deal.

想试试吗？

Ready to try it?

现在就去Zbiotics.com/strict吧。

Go to Zbiotics dot com slash strict now.

结账时使用代码 Strict，即可享受首单15%折扣，且提供100%退款保证，毫无风险。

You'll get 15% off your first order when you use strict at checkout, plus it's backed by a 100% money back guarantee, so there's no risk.

还提供订阅服务，以确保最佳一致性。

Subscriptions are also available for maximum consistency.

记得前往 zbiotics.com/strict，并在结账时使用代码 Strict 享受15%折扣。

Remember to head to zbiotics.com/strict and use a code Strict at checkout for 15% off.

Strict Scrutiny 由 Sundays for Dogs 赞助播出。

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Sundays for dogs.

新年，新自我。

New year, new you.

应该包括吃得更好。

Should always include eating better.

对吧？

Right?

既然你在提升和优化身体摄入的东西，那为什么我们的狗狗还停留在老一套的狗粮模式呢？

Well, if you're upgrading and optimizing what goes in your body, then why are our dogs still stuck with the same old kibble routine?

给他们用Sundays for dogs。

Give them Sundays for dogs.

Sundays由一位兽医兼母亲Tori Waxman医生创立，她厌倦了看到那些所谓的高端狗粮里充斥着填充物和合成成分。

Sundays was founded by a veterinarian and mom, doctor Tori Waxman, who got tired of seeing so called premium dog food full of fillers and synthetics.

于是她设计了Sundays，这是一种在符合人类食品标准的厨房中采用空气干燥工艺制成的真材实料狗粮，使用的食材和用心程度与你为自己和家人做饭时一样。

So she designed sundaes, air dried real food made in a human grade kitchen using the same ingredients and care you'd use to cook for yourself and your family.

每一口Sundays都纯净无添加，由真实肉类、水果和蔬菜制成，不含任何狗粮。

Every bite of sundaes is clean and made from real meat, fruits, and veggies with no kibble.

这意味着没有你念不出名字的奇怪成分，也没有填充物。

That means no weird ingredients you can't pronounce and no fillers.

与普通狗粮或其他品牌相比，Sundays在食材上的投入高出50倍，以确保顶级品质，因为你的狗狗值得享用用心制作的食物，而不是为降低成本而生产的劣质产品。

Compared to kibble or other brands out there, sundaes invest 50 times more in its ingredients to ensure premium quality because your dog deserves food made with care, not in the interest of cost cutting.

最棒的是，你只需舀出来直接喂食。

And the best part, you just scoop and serve.

无需冷冻、解冻或准备，也不会弄脏。

No freezer, no thawing or prep, no mess.

只需营养丰富、纯净的食物，为它们带来最快乐、最健康的日子，让你能有更多时光与它们共度。

Just nutrient rich clean food that fuels their happiest, healthiest days, so you get more of them to share together.

正如你们所知，我对我家狗Stevie着迷得不得了。

As you all know, I am obsessed AF with my dog Stevie.

她向我保证会永远活着，这就要求我给她喂营养又美味的食物。

She's promised me she will live forever, which requires me feeding her nutritious and delicious food.

她是个挑食的主儿，讲究生活品质，她很喜欢你们的Sundaes，而且Sundaes似乎也很喜欢她。

She is a picky eater and into the finer things in life, and she likes your sundaes, and it seems to like her too.

我敢肯定，她最近眼屎少多了。

Pretty sure she's not had as many eye boogers recently.

赶紧换成Sundaes吧。

Make the switch to sundaes.

立即前往sundaesfordogs.com/strict，首单享受50%折扣，或在结账时使用代码strict。

Go right now to sundaesfordogs.com/strict and get 50% off your first order, or you can use code strict at checkout.

那就是在sundaysfordogs.com/strict上，首单享50%折扣。

That's 50% off your first order at sundaysfordogs.com/strict.

访问 sundaysfordogs.com/strict 或在结账时使用代码 strict。

Sundaysfordogs.com/strict or use code strict at checkout.

欢迎回来。

Welcome back.

我是本环节的主持人，莉亚。

I'm your host for this segment, Leah.

我很高兴再次邀请到斯凯·佩里曼，民主前进组织的总裁兼首席执行官，该组织真正站在前线和前沿，致力于监督本届政府、推动法律与问责的落实。

And I am delighted to be joined once again by Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, one of the organizations that has truly been on the front lines and frontier in holding this administration accountable and making the whole law and accountability thing happen.

欢迎再次来到节目，斯凯。

Welcome back to the show, Skye.

很高兴见到你。

It's great to see you.

新年快乐。

Happy New Year.

新年快乐。

Happy New Year.

已经有一段时间没录了，事实上，我们差不多有整整三周没有录制了。

It has been a hot minute, and we actually haven't recorded for almost three full weeks at this point.

我们本想趁着假期休息一下。

We tried to take a break for the holidays.

可惜，法西斯不会休息，而与之抗争的人们也不能休息。

Alas, fascism does not, and neither can the people fighting it.

所以，斯凯，我想我们先聊聊假期期间出现的一些法律挑战，然后请你对过去一年和即将到来的一年做一些宏观的反思。

So I thought, Skye, we'd start by talking about some of the legal challenges that cropped up over the holidays, and then I'll ask you for some big picture thoughts reflecting on the last year and the year ahead.

这个计划听起来怎么样？

Does that sound like a plan?

当然。

Sure.

那就开始吧。

Let's do it.

好的。

Okay.

让我们从有关各种资金削减的诉讼开始。

So let's start with litigation over various funding cuts.

我知道你正在参与美国教师联合会对教育部终止数百万美元全服务社区学校资金的诉讼。

So I know you're working on litigation involving the American Federation of Teachers challenging the Department of Education's termination of millions of dollars in funding for full service community schools.

你能为我们听众简单介绍一下什么是全服务社区学校，以及它们为什么重要吗？

So can you just describe for our listeners what are full service community schools and why they are important?

这对全国许多社区来说都至关重要。

This is really important to so many communities across the country.

这些学校为家庭、社区和需要额外教育支持的学生提供了真正不可或缺的服务。

These schools provide, really essential services to families, to communities, to students who need, in in some instances, extra educational services.

但它们确实是基石性的存在。

But they're really such a cornerstone.

我们在假期期间看到了一种趋势：总统和政府削减了那些本不应被政治化的问题，而且往往选择在人们疏于关注的时候进行。

And this is a trend we saw over the holidays, which is, the president and the administration making cuts to things that should really not be political or politicized and doing so at times where they hope, I think, that, people weren't paying attention and looking.

我们在民主前进组织很幸运。

We're fortunate at Democracy Forward.

我们的律师团队和合作伙伴组织制定了一个计划，保持警惕，密切关注。

Our team of lawyers and our partner organizations, we set up a plan to be vigilant, to be paying attention.

因此，我们代表一家位于芝加哥的非营利组织和美国教师联合会提起了诉讼。

And so we did bring suit on behalf of a Chicago based nonprofit and the American Federation of Teachers.

这项诉讼将持续到新的一年。

That suit will continue into the new year.

此外，我们还就一系列其他资金削减提起了诉讼，包括代表美国儿科学会提起的诉讼，因为政府

And we also had to bring suit for a range of other funding cuts, including on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, where the administration

所以我们稍后会详细讲这个。

So we'll get to that one just in, like, one one one second.

但在那之前，我想再提一下这个假期季的另一个公告，这进一步印证了你所说的，政府如何彻底颠倒了这个给予的季节。

But before we do, I do want to add another kind of holiday season announcement that this administration gave us just to kinda underscore the point you were making about them really turning the giving season upside down.

这个公告是全新的。

And this announcement is new.

我想特别指出这一点，因为它严重违法，会加剧削减全服务社区学校所带来的伤害，那就是特朗普政府在新年前夜宣布，由于索马里社区一些人涉嫌欺诈，将冻结对明尼苏达州的所有儿童保育付款。

I wanted to flag it both because it is wildly illegal and will add to the harms of cutting full service community schools, and that is the Trump administration's announcement of New Year's Eve Eve that it would be freezing all childcare payments to Minnesota in the aftermath of allegations of fraud by some in the Somali community.

斯凯，正如我所说，我知道这非常新，是突发新闻。

Skye, as I said, I know this is super new and breaking.

你知道，我认为这还不够，或者时间太短，不足以让诉讼真正启动，但我还是想听听你的看法，尤其是因为你提到了他们试图利用假日季节来掩盖行为。

You know, I don't think it's enough or enough time has passed to allow litigation to really get off the ground, but I did wanna get your reaction to this, especially since you brought up them trying to get cover from the holiday season.

是的。

Yeah.

我的意思是，这真的非常恶劣。

I mean, it's really perverse.

让我们直说吧，没有人希望政府内部出现欺诈行为。

And let's just say outright, no one wants fraud to occur within the government.

事实上，这正是我们感到不安的原因——总统去年上任后做的第一件事之一，就是解雇了所有监察长，他们的职责本是揭露政府中的欺诈和滥用行为。

And in fact, that's why we're also disturbed that the president one of the first things he did last year was to fire all the inspector generals, whose job it is to root out fraud and abuse in government.

所以，明确一点，据我所知，任何支持美国、希望生活在我们民主制度中的人，都不希望政府内部出现欺诈。

So just to be clear, nobody, that I know of that that supports the The United States and wants to live in our democracy wants fraud within the government.

但这一举动明显带有残忍、报复和惩罚的意味。

But this action really slaps of cruelty and of retaliation and retribution.

这没有任何依据。

There's no basis for it.

监督，以及基于监督的必要起诉，这是常态。

Oversight, and prosecutions, if necessary, based on that oversight, that is typical.

当司法部不被政治化、不充当总统的私人律师时，多年来一直如此行事。

That is something that the Department of Justice, when it is not politicized and not acting as the personal attorney of the president, has done for many years.

但这是另一种情况，明尼苏达州的孩子们、家庭将受到伤害。

But this is another one of these situations where you have, you know, children in the state of Minnesota, families that are gonna be harmed.

你对这种广泛的做法没有任何依据。

You have no basis for some broad brush approach.

当然，我们非常担心总统如何对待索马里裔美国人，以及他发表的那些轻率、报复性、甚至公然种族主义的言论。

And then, of course, we do have a lot of concern about how the president has been treating, Somali Americans and the, the rash sort of statements and, retributive and, frankly, racist statements that have been made.

可能存在一些欺诈行为，但这需要单独调查。

It is possible that there is some fraud, but that is something that needs to be investigated in its own.

你不能拿大锤去砸整个项目，从而影响到众多儿童和家庭。

And you don't take a wrecking ball to an entire program that's gonna affect, you know, many, many children and families.

所以你提到没有人希望政府出现欺诈行为。

So you mentioned that no one wants fraud in government.

斯凯，我担心你可能太宽容了，考虑到这位总统已经赦免了一些涉嫌在政府服务中欺诈的人。

Skye, I worry you might have been too generous there given some of the pardons this president has issued, you know, to people who were committing some fraud related to government service.

比如乔治·桑托斯，你就想到了。

You know, George Santos, you know, comes to mind.

没错。

That's right.

所以没有人想在

And so no one in

民主派群体中，没有人支持民主

the pro democracy community No one in the pro democracy

好的。

Okay.

社区

Community

没有人希望政府中有欺诈行为。

wants fraud in government.

我的意思是，这正是我之前提到监察长们的原因。

I mean, this this then that's what I pointed out with the inspector generals.

我的意思是，这位总统实际上助长并削弱了我们用来防范政府欺诈和滥用的诸多保护机制。

I mean, this president has really aided and abetted and and really taken away so many of the protections that we have to against fraud and against abuse in government.

然后，当然，他还进行这种心理操控，试图正确地……

And then, of course, does this gaslighting where, he seeks to Right.

发表一些非常不当的、笼统的言论，针对特定人群。

Make statements and, very, inappropriate sort of broad brush statements about people groups seeking to target people groups.

我们知道，这正是专制者手册中的一个章节，我们在这里看到了它的展开。

We know that's a chapter out of an autocrat's playbook that we see unfold and that you see that here.

当然，最终受伤害的将是明尼苏达州的家庭和儿童。

And then, of course, it's going to be, families and children in Minnesota that really are going to harmed as a result of this.

是的。

Yeah.

这不仅仅是总统对索马里社区公开的种族主义和仇外情绪。

And it's not just, like, the president's, like, overt kind of racism and xenophobia being directed at the Somali community.

而且他似乎已经有效地授权了TikTok上的自由派和其他右翼网红，让他们成为政府的实际代理人。

It also seems like he has effectively deputized, like, libs of TikTok and other right wing influencers, right, as effective agents of the government.

你知道，这里的一些指控部分基于右翼网红拍摄自己前往托儿所、询问孩子们在哪里并被要求离开的视频。

You know, some of the allegations here are literally based in part on right wing influencers videotaping themselves going to daycares and asking where are the kids and being told to leave.

我很抱歉。

And I'm sorry.

如果一个陌生男人带着摄像机来到托儿所，问孩子们在哪里，我会非常失望，如果他们没有被拒之门外的话。

If some strange man came to a day care center with a video asking where are the children, like, I I would be very disappointed if they were not turned away.

但，我说远了。

But, you know, I digress.

总之，你刚才正要谈到涉及美国儿科学会的拨款案。

Anyway, so you were about to get to the funding case involving the American Academy of Pediatrics.

完全正确。

That's totally right.

我知道我们接下来会谈到2026年。

And one of the themes I know we're gonna get to 2026.

但你们会看到，我们和其他人必须不仅对我们的政府、这位总统及其行政团队负责，

But one of the things you're gonna see us and others do is we have to not just hold our government accountable and this president and administration accountable.

我们还必须追究那些协助和纵容这位总统及其行政团队的机构的责任，包括你提到的那套基础设施——无论是社交媒体，还是试图协助移民与海关执法局的公司。

We have to hold accountable the institutions that are aiding and abetting this president and this administration, including that infrastructure that you mentioned, whether it's on social media or whether it's gonna be companies that are trying to aid and abet ICE.

我知道我们稍后会谈到这一点，但这是一个重要的主题。

So I know we'll get to that in a minute, but that's a big theme.

但没错，假期期间，总统和行政部门针对的是旨在早期发现婴儿和儿童疾病、病症的项目，包括早期听力损失检测等项目，这些项目旨在预防婴儿和儿童死亡，却粗暴地取消了对这些项目的数百万美元联邦拨款。

But yes, also over the holiday, the president and the administration took aim at, programs that are designed for early detection of infant and early childhood diseases and, sicknesses and illnesses, including things like early hearing loss or hearing detection, programs that are aimed at preventing, infant and childhood mortality, and brashly canceled, millions of dollars of federal funding to those programs.

而这一切，是因为这一行政团队对医学和科学声音的不满与敌意，针对的是美国儿科学会。

And, we you know, as a result of retaliation and retribution for this administration's disagreement with and hatred of the voices of medicine and science, the American Academy of Pediatrics.

因此，我们正在代表美国儿科学会提起诉讼，要求恢复这些资金。

And so we're in court on behalf of AAP seeking to get that funding restored.

在一系列案例中，我们已成功恢复了资金，这些案例中，行政部门因专业机构直言不讳地坚持医学、科学和证据而进行报复。

We've successfully been able to restore funding in a range of these cases where the administration has retaliated against the professional society as a result of that professional society's, you know, kinda calling it like like they see it with medicine, science, and evidence.