Professor Strauss: Well, Mr. President, it's a tremendous honor for the University and the law school. Welcome back. 施特劳斯教授：总统先生，对这所大学和法学院来说，这是莫大的荣幸。欢迎您回来。
President Obama: It is good to be back. It is good to be back. As some of you may know, I actually spent 10 years teaching classes and seminars here, and it was really fun. And I missed it. And I thought, well, why don't I come back and say hi to everybody. 奥巴马总统：回来真好。回来真好。你们中有些人可能知道，我实际上在这里教了十年书，授课也主持研讨会，那真的很有趣。我很怀念那段时光。我就想，何不回来跟大家打个招呼呢。
So there are a couple of people I want to acknowledge because they helped to facilitate this. First of all, I want to thank Dean Miles for closing down the school, I guess, for a day. Thank you. Special acknowledgements for Geoff Stone and Doug Baird, who were great friends when I was teaching here and were partly responsible for having me actually take on some responsibility straight out of law school to mold the minds of students who were just barely younger than me. I know that because some of them I saw and they all have gray hair now -- which is a little troubling. 有几个人我想表示感谢，因为他们促成了这次活动。首先，我要感谢迈尔斯院长让学校停课了一天吧大概。谢谢你。特别感谢杰夫·斯通和道格·贝尔德，我在这里教书时他们就是我的好朋友，当年我刚从法学院毕业，能承担起一些教学职责、塑造那些比我小不了几岁的学生的思想，他们也有一份功劳。我之所以知道，是因为我刚才见到了他们一些人，头发都白了——这让我有点不安。
We've got a terrific congressional delegation who’s here, and I just want to acknowledge them. First of all, your outstanding senior Senator for the great state of Illinois, Dick Durbin is here. And we've got Congressman Bobby Rush. Congressman Danny Davis. Congressman Bill Foster. And Congressman Mike Quigley. We also have Lisa Madigan, the Attorney General of Illinois. And my former seatmate in Springfield when we were both in the State Senate together, and is doing a terrific job. 今天到场的还有非常出色的国会代表团，我想向他们致意。首先，来自伟大的伊利诺伊州的资深参议员迪克·德宾也在这里。还有众议员鲍比·拉什。众议员丹尼·戴维斯。众议员比尔·福斯特。以及众议员迈克·奎格利。我们还有伊利诺伊州总检察长莉萨·马迪根。还有我在斯普林菲尔德时的同座，当年我们一起在州参议院任职，她现在干得非常出色。
And I want to thank David, who I was joking before we came out, is one of the country’s foremost constitutional experts -- and a nice guy. And you guys are lucky to have him. In fact, when I was teaching here I think I stole his Con Law class for a while, and he graciously gave it up because despite the privilege of grading 60 or 70 bluebooks -- he apparently thought it was important for me to have that privilege as well. 我还要感谢戴维，我们出来前我还在开玩笑说，他是美国最重要的宪法专家之一——而且人也很好。你们能有他真是幸运。事实上，我在这里教书时，好像还抢过他的宪法课，他很慷慨地让给了我，因为尽管批改六七十本蓝色考试卷是一种"特权"——他显然觉得让我也享有这份特权很重要。
The last thing I'll say by way of introduction -- I had a chance to talk to some young people over in the overflow room, mostly students, and I just said to them that having now been in politics for quite some time, seeing what lawyers are capable of doing every single day, working on a whole range of issues that are of huge importance to our democracy and to our society, I hope that all the students here are excited about the incredible changes and good that you are going to be able to do when you get out of here. 作为开场白我最后再说一句——我刚才有机会和隔壁溢出房间的一些年轻人聊了聊，大部分是学生，我对他们说，我从政已经有相当长一段时间了，每天看到律师们能做的事情，他们在对我们的民主和社会至关重要的各种议题上努力工作，我希望这里所有的学生都对你们毕业后将能够带来的非凡改变和贡献感到兴奋。
I know that sometimes the news feeds cynicism and democracy at this moment seems particularly frustrating. But each and every day, I see lawyers not that much older than you who are helping young people get an education, are making sure that consumers are protected, are helping to keep America safe, are ensuring that our health care system works for everybody, are helping to preserve the planet and fight against climate change. It is remarkable what you can do with your talents. And it doesn’t always get a lot of publicity, but you can make a really meaningful difference. 我知道，有时候新闻助长了犬儒主义，此刻的民主似乎特别令人沮丧。但每一天，我都看到和你们年纪相差不大的律师们在帮助年轻人接受教育，在确保消费者受到保护，在帮助维护美国的安全，在保障我们的医疗体系为每个人服务，在帮助保护地球、对抗气候变化。用你们的才能可以做到的事情是非凡的。而且这并不总是能得到很多关注，但你可以产生真正有意义的影响。
So one of the reasons I wanted to come back is to recruit you. To stay engaged, get involved, make a difference. It doesn’t mean you have to run for office. It doesn't mean you have to run for office. It doesn't mean you even have to work for government. There are a lot of ways of serving. But I do hope that one of the things that you will take away from our discussion today and your extraordinary education here at the University of Chicago is the incredible high that you can get from serving this country. 所以我想回来的原因之一就是来招募你们。保持参与，投身其中，做出改变。这并不意味着你必须竞选公职。这并不意味着你必须竞选公职。这甚至不意味着你必须为政府工作。服务的方式有很多种。但我真心希望，你们从今天的讨论中，以及在芝加哥大学接受的卓越教育中，能收获的一样东西，就是为这个国家服务所能带来的那种无与伦比的满足感。
So with that, what do you want to talk about, David? 好了，戴维，你想聊点什么？
Professor Strauss: Well, let me start back when you were here as a teacher. I know you taught constitutional law, so you were thinking about the Supreme Court and thinking about the justices and what would make someone -- or what make someone a great justice or a successful justice. But you're in a different spot now. Has your thinking changed? 施特劳斯教授：好的，让我从您还在这里当老师的时候说起。我知道您教过宪法，所以您当时会思考最高法院，思考大法官，以及什么样的人能成为——或者说是什么造就了一位伟大的大法官或成功的大法官。但您现在的位置不同了。您的想法有变化吗？
President Obama: Surprisingly, not as much as you would have expected. Obviously, we're having a substantial argument in Washington right now about not just a particular judge, but also about the process of appointing judges to the federal courts and appointing nominees to the Supreme Court. 奥巴马总统：出人意料的是，变化没有你想象的那么大。显然，我们现在在华盛顿正进行着一场激烈的争论，不仅是关于某位法官，还涉及联邦法院法官的任命程序，以及最高法院大法官的提名。
And to get this out of the way, Merrick Garland is an extraordinary jurist who is indisputably qualified to serve on the highest court in the land. And nobody really argues otherwise. I just want to be clear here. If the question is qualifications and excellence, it is uniformly viewed by not just Democrats but also Republicans, those who have served -- lawyers, judges, legal scholars, members of the current Supreme Court -- that he is as good of a judge as we have in this country right now. That he’s fair, he’s smart, he’s objective. He’s a consensus builder. 开门见山地说，梅里克·加兰是一位杰出的法学家，他担任最高法院大法官的资格是无可争议的。没有人真正质疑这一点。我想在这里说清楚。如果问题是资格和优秀程度，那么不仅民主党人，共和党人也一致认为——那些曾任职的人——律师、法官、法律学者、现任最高法院大法官们——都认为他是我们这个国家目前最好的法官之一。他公正、聪明、客观。他是一位共识建设者。
He shows judicial restraint. He’s appreciative of the unique role of the Court, but also respectful of the role of the other branches of government. 他展现出司法克制。他理解最高法院的独特作用，同时也尊重政府其他部门的角色。
So no one has plausibly made an argument that this is not the kind of person we’d want on the Supreme Court. The question then becomes, why is it so hard for the guy just to get a hearing and a vote? 所以没有人能言之凿凿地说他不是我们希望在最高法院看到的那种人。那么问题就来了，为什么这家伙连个听证会和投票都这么难得到？
And this speaks to what’s happened, generally, when it comes to the process of appointing federal judges. It used to be that people read the Constitution and Article II powers fairly straightforwardly. It says the President shall make these nominations with the advice and consent of the Senate. And unless there was some sort of real problem with that judge’s character or qualifications, it was fairly routine at every level -- both at the district court level, the appellate court level, and the Supreme Court -- that the person would be confirmed in short order. 这就涉及到联邦法官任命程序中普遍发生的变化。过去，人们对宪法和第二条权力的解读是相当直接的。宪法规定，总统应在参议院的建议和同意下进行这些任命。除非那位法官的品格或资格有什么真正的问题，否则在各级法院——地区法院、上诉法院和最高法院——获得确认都是相当常规的事情，而且很快就能完成。
There would be a hearing. People would ask the potential judge a question or two or five or 10. There would be questionnaires. And once they had satisfactorily performed that process, then the Senate would vote. 会有一场听证会。人们会向候选法官提一两个、五或十个问题。会有问卷调查。一旦他们令人满意地完成了这个程序，参议院就会投票。
And it was presumed -- it was understood that just as the President had a constitutional duty to make the appointment that the Senate had a constitutional duty to at least make a determination as to whether this person should be on the bench. 而且人们默认——大家都理解，正如总统有宪法职责进行任命一样，参议院也有宪法职责，至少要对这个人是否应该担任法官做出决定。
What has been unique in this process has been the growing attitude inside of the Senate that every nomination, no matter how well-qualified a judge, is a subject of contention. In some cases, it’s simply because one party or the other wants to gum up the works and so they will drag out confirmation longer and longer. Even if, ultimately, the judge gets confirmed by voice vote, by unanimous consent in the Senate, they’ll drag it out for two or three months, because if you're bogged down with judges, then it means other business can't be done. So sometimes it’s just strategic. 这个过程中独特的变化是，参议院内部逐渐形成了一种态度：每一项提名，无论法官多么合格，都是争议的对象。在某些情况下，仅仅是因为一党或另一党想要阻挠议事，所以他们会把确认程序拖得越来越长。即使最终法官以口头表决、一致同意的方式在参议院获得确认，他们也要拖上两三个月，因为如果你被法官任命的事拖住了，就意味着其他事务无法推进。所以有时候这纯粹是策略性的。
In other cases, the view has been that despite all the talk about people wanting objective judges who are just calling balls and strikes and don't bring any views to bear, that there are litmus tests that are applied that prevent a judge from getting a fair vote, even though they're qualified, because they don't meet the particular views of the party that's objecting. 在另一些情况下，人们的看法是，尽管大家都在说想要客观的法官、只是"判球和判好球"的法官、不带个人观点的法官，但实际上存在着种种"石蕊试纸"式的检验标准，妨碍了法官获得公平的投票，尽管他们是合格的，仅仅因为他们不符合反对党所持的特定观点。
And this problem got bad enough in previous administrations, but came to a head under my administration, in which we had a situation where we were starting to see six months pass or nine months pass before a judge could get a hearing. This was when Democrats were in charge of the Senate, but because of the particular rules of the filibuster that previously had been used for just a few things but now were routinely deployed on everything, we just couldn’t get judges through. And you started seeing a crisis in vacancies across districts and circuits everywhere. 这个问题在之前几届政府中就已经很严重了，但在我任内达到了顶峰。我们经历了这样一种情况：法官要等上六个月甚至九个月才能获得听证会。当时是民主党掌控参议院，但由于阻挠议事的特殊规则——过去只在少数事情上使用，现在却成了家常便饭——我们就是无法让法官任命通过。于是各地的地区法院和巡回法院开始出现职位空缺危机。
Finally, the Democrats said, we're ending the ability for Senate members to filibuster when it comes to district court and appellate court justices, but we're going to preserve it for the Supreme Court. 最后，民主党人说，我们要取消参议员在地区法院和上诉法院法官任命上的阻挠议事权，但最高法院的我们保留。
We now have a situation, after Judge Scalia’s passing, in which it’s not just that the Republican majority in the Senate intend to vote against a highly qualified judge, we now have a situation where they're saying, we simply will not consider the nomination itself. We're just going to shut down the process. And as a consequence, we have a 4-4 tie in the Supreme Court and potentially at least two Supreme Court terms in which this vacancy will remain. 现在的情况是，斯卡利亚大法官去世后，问题已经不只是参议院共和党多数派打算投票反对一位高度合格的法官了，而是他们说，我们根本就不会考虑这项提名本身。我们要直接叫停这个程序。结果就是，最高法院出现了4比4的僵局，而且可能至少两个最高法院开庭期内这个空缺都会一直存在。
That is unprecedented. Not only are they not willing to hold a vote at this point, they have refused to hold hearings on Judge Garland. And in some cases, Mitch McConnell and others have said, we will not even show the courtesy of meeting with the judge to find out what he thinks. 这是史无前例的。他们不仅不愿意举行投票，甚至拒绝为加兰法官举行听证会。在某些情况下，米奇·麦康奈尔等人甚至说，我们连与这位法官见面了解他想法的礼节都不会讲。
And I think what’s important for all of you to understand -- because you're going to be not just lawyers appearing in court, potentially, but custodians of our legal system and our democracy -- is if you start getting into a situation in which the process of appointing judges is so broken, so partisan that an eminently qualified jurist cannot even get a hearing, then we are going to see the kinds of sharp, partisan polarization that has come to characterize our electoral politics seeping entirely into the judicial system. 我认为对你们所有人来说重要的是要明白——因为你们将来可能不只是出庭律师，还会是我们法律体系和民主的守护者——如果我们开始陷入这样一种境地：法官任命程序如此崩坏、如此党派化，以至于一位杰出的合格法学家连听证会都得不到，那么我们就会看到，已经成为我们选举政治特征的那种尖锐的党派两极分化，将完全渗透到司法系统中。
And the courts will be just an extension of our legislatures and our elections and our politics. 法院将仅仅成为我们的立法机构、选举和政治的延伸。
And that erodes the institutional integrity of the judicial branch. At that point, people lose confidence in the ability of the courts to fairly adjudicate cases and controversies. And our democracy can't afford that. Our system is designed to make sure that this branch works. And it requires a broad consensus, even if we don't agree on any particular ruling, that the court’s rulings itself are legitimate and consistent with our democratic design. And that's why this is so important. It’s not just a matter of who is occupying that ninth seat in the Supreme Court. 这会侵蚀司法部门的制度完整性。到那个时候，人们会对法院公正裁决案件和争议的能力失去信心。我们的民主承受不起那样的代价。我们的制度设计就是为了确保这个部门能够正常运转。这需要广泛的共识，即使我们对任何特定的裁决有不同意见，也要认同法院的裁决本身是合法的，符合我们的民主设计。这就是为什么这件事如此重要。
It has to do with how we, as a democracy, operate, and the particular authority that a court has to bring in order for our democracy to work. 这不仅仅是谁占据最高法院第九个席位的问题。这关系到我们作为一个民主国家如何运作，以及法院为了我们的民主能够正常运转所必须具备的特殊权威。
That was a really long answer. Others will not be as long. 这个回答真的太长了。其他的回答不会这么长。
Professor Strauss: Well, let me ask you about that, Mr. President. How did we get to this point? You hear sometimes that the problem is the Supreme Court has injected itself into political issues, and so, of course, it gets enmeshed in politics. But the Supreme Court has been controversial almost from the beginning -- from the Jeffersonians’ attack on the Marshall Court, all the way through the “Impeach Earl Warren” billboards in parts of the country in the ‘50s and ‘60s. And we haven’t had this before. So is there -- do you have an explanation for what it is that brought us to this position? 施特劳斯教授：好的，总统先生，我想就这个问题问您。我们是怎么走到这一步的？您有时会听到这样的说法：问题在于最高法院把自己卷入了政治议题，所以它当然会陷入政治。但最高法院几乎从一开始就有争议——从杰斐逊派对马歇尔法院的攻击，一直到五六十年代美国部分地区"弹劾厄尔·沃伦"的广告牌。而以前我们从未遇到过这种情况。所以您能解释一下，是什么把我们带到了今天这个境地吗？
President Obama: I think there are a variety of explanations. First of all, it’s important to underscore what you just said. And all of you law students, even if you're not critical, legal theorists, or what have you, I think just from reading cases, you will acknowledge that there’s politics in legal rulings. When we make decisions about right, wrong, what are the rules governing our society, et cetera, that that's an extension of our broader political and democratic conversation. Nobody is denying that. 奥巴马总统：我认为有多种解释。首先，必须强调你刚才说的。你们所有法学院的学生，即使你们不是批判法律理论家之类的，我想仅从阅读判例中，你们也会承认法律裁决中包含政治因素。当我们对是非对错、对管理社会的规则等等做出决定时，那是我们更广泛的政治和民主对话的延伸。没有人否认这一点。
And you're right. There have been controversies in the past about how we should decide the balance between liberty and security, about how do we treat minority groups to assure that they are protected from majority rule. How do we make sure that the political process itself has integrity and that our votes count? Those are all issue where passions are real and people have opinions. And there’s nothing wrong with that. 你说得对。过去也曾有过争议，关于我们应该如何决定自由与安全之间的平衡，关于我们应如何对待少数族裔以确保他们免受多数人统治的侵害。关于我们如何确保政治进程本身的公正性，确保我们的投票有意义。这些都是能激起强烈情绪、人们各持己见的问题。这本身没有问题。
But I think what changed was when the Congress itself, and the Senate in particular, began to change. I think in some ways the judicial process is a casualty of some broader trends in our democracy. First of all, our politics have become much more polarized. There’s been something called the “great sorting” because of gerrymandering, because of how our media works where folks either watch Fox News or they read The New York Times, but rarely do both. Positions get hardened and reinforced. Partisans carry more weight within each party. 但我认为真正改变的是国会本身，尤其是参议院，开始发生变化。我认为在某种程度上，司法程序是我们民主中一些更广泛趋势的牺牲品。首先，我们的政治变得更加两极分化。出现了一种被称为"大分流"的现象，原因包括选区不公正划分，也包括我们媒体的运作方式——人们要么看福克斯新闻，要么读《纽约时报》，但很少两者都看。立场变得更加固化和强化。党派人士在各自党内的话语权越来越大。
The notion of a liberal Republican or a conservative Democrat -- those things broke down. And so politics itself got more polarized. 自由派共和党人或保守派民主党人的概念——这些都已瓦解。因此政治本身变得更加两极分化。
That, then, fed into a culture in Congress in which basic comity and habits of courtesy and process and institutional respect for people that you can agree with, those things began to break down. The filibuster, as I said, started becoming just standard practice. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says every item that comes before the Senate is supposed to get a super majority. It used to be that the filibuster -- it doesn’t have a very distinguished history -- was used principally for blocking civil rights and anti-lynching and voting rights legislation. 这进而影响了国会的文化，在这种文化中，基本的礼让、礼貌的习惯、程序以及对你能认同的人的制度尊重，这些东西都开始崩溃。正如我所说，阻挠议事开始成为标准做法。宪法中没有任何条款说参议院审议的每一项议题都需要超级多数通过。过去，阻挠议事——它的历史并不光彩——主要被用来阻止民权、反私刑和投票权立法。
That was bad enough. It then suddenly became the norm for everything as minority parties started to decide that they wanted to block what the majority of senators were in favor of. And so all of this I think contributed to a breakdown of the process. 那已经够糟糕的了。但后来它突然成了一切事务的常态，因为少数党开始决定，他们想要阻止多数参议员支持的事情。所以我认为所有这些都导致了程序的崩溃。
Now, in fairness, Democrats are not blameless on this. If you talk to Republicans, they’ll also often point to the Bork nomination as where this all started. And there have been times where Democrats used the filibuster to block what Republican Presidents or conservative legal theorists viewed as eminently qualified jurists. I will say that there has not been a circumstance in which a Republican President’s appointee did not get a hearing, did not get a vote, and as a general proposition, they have been confirmed even where there have been strong objections. 公平地说，民主党人在这件事上也并非无可指责。如果你和共和党人交谈，他们也经常指出博克提名是这一切的起点。也曾有民主党人利用阻挠议事来阻止共和党总统或保守派法律理论家认为非常合格的法学家的情况。但我要说的是，从来没有出现过共和党总统的提名人连听证会都得不到、连投票都得不到的情况，而且总体而言，即使有强烈反对，他们也都获得了确认。
So what you have here is, I think, a circumstance in which those in the Senate have decided that placating our base is more important than upholding their constitutional and institutional roles in our democracy in a way that is dangerous. And there are other examples of it, but this judicial nomination process I think has become an extreme example. 所以我认为现在的情况是，参议院中的那些人决定，讨好我们的基本盘比维护他们在我们民主中的宪法和制度角色更重要——这是危险的。这样的例子还有很多，但这次司法提名程序我认为已经成为一个极端的例子。
Professor Strauss: Let me take you back a step to how -- to your thinking about when you're making an appointment. And I'm going to try to put it in an historical context a little bit. You have Presidents who really set out to reshape the Court. And Franklin Roosevelt may be the clearest example. He was determined to find justices who would uphold New Deal legislation. Richard Nixon wanted justices who would limit the rights of people accused of crimes, and that's sort of one model. 施特劳斯教授：让我再往回退一步，谈谈您在做出任命时的想法。我想试着把它放在历史背景中来看。有些总统确实着手重塑最高法院。富兰克林·罗斯福可能是最明显的例子。他决心找到支持新政立法的大法官。理查德·尼克松想要限制刑事被告权利的大法官，这算是一种模式。
And then you have Presidents who did not have any particular agenda. And I think President Eisenhower is an example. He appointed three of the great justices of the 20th century -- Chief Justice Warren, Justice Harlan, Justice Brennan. But his appointees came from different backgrounds, no identifiable tendency in the way they thought about the Constitution. 也有一些总统没有特定的议程。我想艾森豪威尔总统就是一个例子。他任命了20世纪三位伟大的大法官——沃伦首席大法官、哈伦大法官、布伦南大法官。但他的任命者背景各异，在宪法思考方式上没有可识别的倾向性。
So do you see yourself as one of those models, or something different from both? 那么您认为自己属于哪种模式，还是两者都不同？
President Obama: There’s no doubt that in making my appointments, the values of the justice matter to me. And what I mean by that is not how they’d rule on a particular issue. In fact, we're very careful when I interview candidates not to ask them about a particular case or controversy that might make it seem as if I want a particular outcome. But what I've been consistently looking for -- and this is what I saw in Justice Sotomayor, what I saw in Justice Kagan -- is people who, number one, have intellectual integrity. 奥巴马总统：毫无疑问，在我的任命中，大法官的价值观对我来说很重要。我的意思不是说他们会在某个特定问题上如何裁决。事实上，我面试候选人时非常小心，不会问他们关于某个特定案件或争议的问题，那样可能会让人觉得我想要某个特定结果。但我一直在寻找的——这也是我在索托马约尔大法官身上看到的，在卡根大法官身上看到的——是这样的人：第一，具有知识上的诚信。
And what that means is, is that they look at the facts and the law, and even if it's uncomfortable to them, they don't like the outcome, they follow the law, and they recognize that that's their job. 这意味着，他们审视事实和法律，即使这让他们感到不舒服，即使他们不喜欢这个结果，他们也会遵循法律，他们认识到这就是他们的职责。
Number two, that they bring a humanity to the job. And what I mean by that is that, particularly on the Supreme Court, nine out of 10 cases -- well, certainly in the federal courts -- nine out of 10 cases we can probably arrive at an outcome just by applying basic tenets to constitutional interpretation. There’s not going to be a lot of controversy. 第二，他们为这份工作带来人性的温度。我的意思是，尤其是在最高法院，十件案子里有九件——当然在联邦法院中也是如此——十件里有九件我们可能只需运用宪法解释的基本原则就能得出结论。不会有太大争议。
The cases that really matter are the ones where there’s ambiguity, where there’s a lack of clarity, where it requires constitutional principles being applied in a way that is true to precedent, is true to basic legal tenets, but also that understands the unique role of the Court in making sure that people who are locked out of the political process, for example, are not permanently locked out, that they have some recourse; 真正重要的案件是那些存在歧义、缺乏明确性的案件，在这些案件中，需要以既遵循先例、又符合基本法律原则的方式来运用宪法原则，但同时也要理解最高法院的独特作用，比如确保那些被排除在政治进程之外的人不会被永久排斥在外，他们有申诉的途径；
that we have justices who understand how the world works so that they are not entirely blind to the history of racial discrimination or gender discrimination, or how money operates in our world. 我们需要的大法官要懂得世事如何运转，这样他们才不会对种族歧视或性别歧视的历史，或金钱在我们世界中的运作方式完全视而不见。
Not because that necessarily leads them to rule on a particular issue, but because it means that when they’re looking at a tough case in which statute or the Constitution does not provide an immediate, ready answer, that they can apply judgment, grounded in how we actually live and the ideals and principles that have made this such an extraordinary country. I want them to have lived a little and be able to see the wide spectrum of people that they’re going to be wielding this enormous power over. 不是因为这必然会引导他们在某个特定问题上做出裁决，而是因为这意味着，当他们面对一个棘手的案件、而法律或宪法没有提供直接现成的答案时，他们能够运用判断力，这种判断力植根于我们实际的生活方式，植根于使这个国家如此非凡的理想和原则。我希望他们有一定的人生阅历，能够看到他们将要行使这巨大权力所影响的各色人群。
And so, a lot of times when I talk to the candidates for the judiciary, I spend time asking about their families and them growing up, and what were formative experiences in their minds. And in some ways, that reveals more than anything. 所以很多时候，当我与司法候选人交谈时，我会花时间询问他们的家庭、成长经历，以及在他们心目中哪些是塑造性的经历。在某些方面，这比什么都更能说明问题。
And part of the reason that I think Merrick Garland would be such an extraordinary judge is not just because he’s already been an extraordinary judge, but I think about his life story. And I mentioned this in the introduction -- when he was a high school kid, as class valedictorian, he’s got a student speaking ahead of him who lambasts the Vietnam War, and parents are trying to unplug the guy’s mic, and Merrick comes in and -- not because he necessarily agrees with the student, but, impromptu, provides a vigorous defense of free speech. 我认为梅里克·加兰会成为一位杰出的大法官，部分原因不仅在于他已经是一位杰出的法官，还在于我想到了他的人生故事。我在介绍中提到过——他上高中时，作为毕业典礼的学生代表，有一个在他前面发言的学生猛烈抨击越南战争，家长们想拔掉那家伙的麦克风，而梅里克站了出来——不是因为他一定同意那个学生，而是即兴地为言论自由进行了有力的辩护。
As a 17- or 18-year-old kid -- that tells me something about him. It gives me confidence that this is somebody who’s thought about what our core values and ethics are as a society. 作为一个十七八岁的孩子——这让我对他有了认识。这让我相信，这个人思考过我们作为一个社会的核心价值观和伦理是什么。
When you hear about the work he did in the Oklahoma City bombing, and he’s presiding over the investigation at the Justice Department, and the fact that he was meticulous in how he conducted that investigation, and didn’t cut corners -- even though, in the wake of those kinds of terrorist attacks, oftentimes it's convenient, because people aren't going to call you on it, to cut corners -- and at the same time, how he kept the program mourning the deceased from the memorial because he knew that each one of those people who had been killed, 当你听说他在俄克拉荷马城爆炸案中的工作时，他在司法部主持调查工作，他进行调查的方式一丝不苟，从不偷工减料——尽管在那种恐怖袭击之后，偷工减料往往很方便，因为没人会追究你——同时，他还坚持让追悼仪式为遇难者默哀，因为他知道每一个遇难者，
and each one of those families had been affected in such profound ways -- that tells me something about who he is. 每一个受到如此深刻影响的家庭——这让我对他的为人有了认识。
And that, as much as anything, I think is going to give me confidence that that's the kind of person where, if I'm before a judge, I want to make sure that I've got somebody who’s wise and who cares about people and is not arbitrary, and can provide confidence to the justice system. And I also think part of the reason I thought Merrick was ideal now is precisely because of all the polarization we were talking about earlier. 我认为，这一点和其他任何东西一样，让我有信心相信，如果我站在法官面前，我希望确保面对的是一位睿智、关心人民、不武断专横的人，一位能够为司法系统带来信心的人。我还认为，我现在觉得梅里克是理想人选的部分原因，正是因为我们前面谈到的所有两极分化。
What a good moment for us to have somebody who is respected by both sides, and who Chief Justice Roberts served with on the Appellate Court and befriended, and consistently said -- despite being on the opposite ends of a bunch of decisions -- said this is somebody who, if he says you're wrong, you’ve got to think long and hard about it. 我们能有一位受到两党尊重的人是多么好啊，罗伯茨首席大法官曾在上诉法院与他共事并结为朋友，而且罗伯茨一直说——尽管在很多判决中他们意见相左——他说这个人，如果他说你错了，你得好好想想到底是不是错了。
He embodies and models what it is that we want to see in our juris prudence. 他体现并塑造了我们希望在法理学中看到的东西。
Professor Strauss: Let me sort of pick up on that. I mean, as you know, some people on the left were disappointed with your choice of Chief Judge Garland. They thought you should have appointed someone who would be more aggressive in moving the Court in a certain direction. 施特劳斯教授：让我接着这个话题说。您知道，左翼的一些人对您选择加兰首席法官感到失望。他们认为您应该任命一个更积极地推动最高法院朝某个方向发展的人。
And I just -- I guess what I want to say is, those of us who knew you “back then” could have said you shouldn’t be surprised, because if I remember correctly -- and correct me if I don't -- when you were teaching constitutional law, there are people in that line of work who hold up the Warren Court as the model and say the Court’s job is to be really on the front lines of attacking society’s problems. And if I remember correctly, you were skeptical of that when you were a law professor. So am I right in remembering that, and has the skepticism carried over? 我只是——我想说的是，我们这些"当年"就认识您的人可能会说，您不应该感到惊讶，因为如果我没记错的话——不对的话请您纠正——您教宪法的时候，那个行业里有些人把沃伦法院奉为典范，说最高法院的职责就是冲在解决社会问题的第一线。如果我没记错的话，您当法学教授时对此是持怀疑态度的。我记得对吗，这种怀疑态度有没有延续下来？
President Obama: No, no, I think you're right about this. It's an adage in con law, and you're familiar with this -- probably the students are too -- that the courts are a terrific shield, but they’re not always a very effective sword. And what I mean by that is, is that there have been moments in history -- Brown v. 奥巴马总统：不，不，我觉得你说得对。这是宪法中的一句格言，你对此很熟悉——可能学生们也一样——法院是极好的盾牌，但它们并不总是非常有效的剑。我的意思是，历史上有过这样的时刻——布朗诉教育委员会案就是最好的例子，而在光谱的另一端，像德雷德·斯科特案这样的判决，则与我们希望法院做的事情背道而驰——
Board of Education being the best example, and on the other end of the spectrum, a decision like Dred Scott, which was antithetical to what we want to see a court do -- there are certain moments where, like in Brown, that democracy has broken down in a fundamental way. The majority has shut down access for the petitions for redress from a minority group. 在某些时刻，就像布朗案中那样，民主已经从根本上崩溃了。多数派剥夺了少数群体寻求救济的途径。
There are times where an individual who is engaging in, let’s say, highly unpopular speech is not going to be able, through the political process, to uphold the values that we, collectively, have decided are pretty important to uphold. 有些时候，一个人进行着——比方说——极不受欢迎的言论，他无法通过政治进程来维护我们共同决定的、相当重要的那些价值观。
And so, in those circumstances, I have a very progressive view of how the courts should operate. But as I think Judge Garland said, being a federal judge doesn’t mean that you have this broad writ to simply remake society. Ideally, you’ve got a political process that does that; that we argue about issues, and we elect representatives, and we get votes, and we pass bills, and we get a new administration and they overturn stuff that we passed. And it's rough, and it's tumble, and it's not always elegant, but that's the constitutional design. 所以在那些情况下，我对法院应该如何运作持非常进步的观点。但我认为正如加兰法官所说，担任联邦法官并不意味着你拥有广泛的权力可以随意重塑社会。理想情况下，这应该是政治进程的任务；我们就各种问题争论，我们选举代表，我们投票，我们通过法案，新一届政府上台，他们推翻我们通过的东西。这个过程很粗糙，很混乱，也不总是优雅，但这就是宪法的设计。
And it has the benefit of making sure that separation of powers and decentralization of power in our society keeps this lumbering ship moving in a pretty good direction. 这样做的好处是确保权力分立和社会权力的分散，让这艘笨重的大船保持在一个不错的方向上前进。
And so it's been rare -- and this is by design -- that the Court engages in massive social engineering. Now, I care deeply about -- there are a whole range of progressive causes that I will continue to fight for as long as I have a breath. I believe in a society that is doing something about climate change in an aggressive way. I believe in a society in which every child is able to get a decent education and opportunity. I believe that everybody should have health care in a society that's wealthy -- it's not a privilege, it's a right. 所以最高法院大规模参与社会工程是很少见的——而且这是有意为之的设计。现在，我深切关心的——有一整套进步主义事业，只要我还有一口气，我就会继续为之奋斗。我相信一个积极应对气候变化的社会。我相信每个孩子都能获得良好教育和机会的社会。我相信在一个富裕的社会中，每个人都应该享有医疗保健——这不是特权，而是权利。
I believe that our criminal justice system is flawed in a whole range of ways. 我认为我们的刑事司法系统在很多方面都存在缺陷。
A couple of weeks ago, or maybe it was last week, I had lunch with a sampling of the people that I've pardoned for nonviolent drug offenses. And I've got a woman sitting next to me who, at a very young age, in her early 20s, was sentenced to life in prison for a nonviolent drug offense. That's crazy. It makes no sense. It was unjust and counterproductive, and leaves huge scars not just in that woman’s family and her children, but in our society as a whole. 几周前，或者可能是上周，我和一些我特赦的非暴力毒品犯罪者共进了午餐。坐在我旁边的一位女士，她很年轻的时候，二十出头，就因为非暴力毒品犯罪被判了终身监禁。这太疯狂了。完全说不通。这不公正，也适得其反，不仅在那个女人的家庭和她的孩子身上留下了巨大的伤痕，也在我们整个社会留下了伤痕。
So there are a whole bunch of things I've done as President and I intend to continue to do and to advocate for. Those are not things, though, that typically a Supreme Court justice is in the position to get done. They don't have taxing power. They don't necessarily have the expertise to be designing programs to get at the things that we care about. And so I do have a modesty in terms of my expectations for what the Court should do. 所以作为总统，我做了很多事情，而且我打算继续做下去，继续为之奋斗。但这些事情通常不是一位最高法院大法官有能力去实现的。他们没有征税权。他们也不一定具备设计方案来解决我们关心的问题的专业知识。所以我对最高法院应该做什么的期望确实是有所克制的。
But I want the court to do what it should do really well. I want a court that does believe that equality under the law is equality under the law -- not just the words, but that it is operationalized, that it's real. I want a court that is treating a poor indigent criminal defendant the same as a wealthy criminal defendant, and that justice is blind with respect to -- she agrees with me. 但我希望法院能把它该做的事情做得非常好。我希望一个真正相信法律面前人人平等的法院——不只是嘴上说说，而是落到实处，真正实现。我希望一个对待贫穷的刑事被告和对待富有的刑事被告一视同仁的法院，正义是盲目的——她同意我的看法。
So modesty in the scope and the nature of what the law is, but doing really well what the Court is designed to do -- that's what I'm looking for in a justice. 所以，在法律的范围和性质上保持谦逊，但把最高法院设计的职责做得非常出色——这就是我在一位大法官身上寻找的品质。
Professor Strauss: I think we can open it up. 施特劳斯教授：我想我们可以开放提问了。
President Obama: Let’s open it up to questions. There you go, a little Socratic method here. State the case! No, I'm teasing. I'm teasing. This young lady right here in the green -- yes. Do we have a mic? Let’s give them mics so everybody can hear you. Introduce yourself, by the way. 奥巴马总统：我们开放提问吧。你看，来点苏格拉底式教学法。陈述案情！不，开玩笑的。开玩笑的。这位穿绿衣服的年轻女士——就是你。有麦克风吗？给他们递一下麦克风，让大家都能听到。对了，先介绍一下你自己。
Question: Hi. 提问者：你好。
President Obama: Hi. 奥巴马总统：你好。
Question: My name is Amelia. 提问者：我叫阿米莉亚。
President Obama: Hey, Amelia. 奥巴马总统：你好，阿米莉亚。
Question: I actually had the opportunity to ask you a question when I was 15 years old, in New Hampshire. 提问者：其实我15岁的时候就有机会问过您一个问题，在新罕布什尔州。
President Obama: Wow. 奥巴马总统：哇。
Question: So I'm really happy to -- 提问者：所以我真的很高兴能——
President Obama: Are you a student here now? 奥巴马总统：你现在是这里的学生吗？
Question: I am. 提问者：是的。
President Obama: That's very cool. Did I answer your question the last time? 奥巴马总统：太棒了。上次我回答了你的问题吗？
Question: You did, very well. 提问者：回答了，回答得很好。
President Obama: Thank goodness. All right, what do you got? 奥巴马总统：谢天谢地。好的，你有什么问题？
Question: So I'm really happy to hear that you said you were going to continue to push for the issues that you care about, because I, of course, believe that the push for the Supreme Court nomination is incredibly important. I'm just a little concerned that other issues could get left behind. One such issue, for example, is criminal justice reform -- specifically, the problem of mass incarceration. So I was wondering if you could speak to what more you’ll do in your last 10 months to address this issue. 提问者：我很高兴听到您说您会继续推动您关心的议题，因为我当然认为推动最高法院大法官提名是极其重要的。我只是有点担心其他议题可能会被落下。比如其中一个议题就是刑事司法改革——特别是大规模监禁的问题。所以我想知道，在您剩下的10个月任期里，您会采取哪些更多措施来解决这个问题。
President Obama: Great. It's a great question. We're in this really interesting moment where generally Congress is thoroughly unproductive -- not, by the way, because of the members of Congress who are here -- who are all doing great work -- but in the aggregate it’s not doing much. 奥巴马总统：好的。这是个很好的问题。我们正处在一个非常有趣的时刻，总的来说国会几乎毫无作为——顺便说一句，不是因为今天到场的这些国会议员——他们都干得非常出色——但总体来说国会没做多少事。
One exception has been this growing interest, this movement in criminal justice reform. And it’s bipartisan and it’s sincere on the part of all sides on this. And it’s an interest convergence. 一个例外是人们对刑事司法改革的兴趣日益增长，这已成为一场运动。而且这是两党共同的，各方对此都是真诚的。这是一种利益的汇合。
You have fiscal conservatives who have been seeing how expensive it is to incarcerate people year after year after year, and how it’s breaking the bank -- particularly at the state level, where if you track spending on public education and spending on incarceration over the last 25, 30 years, there is almost a direct line between more people in jail and less support for public universities, for example. So there’s a fiscal concern. 财政保守派看到，年复一年地关押人成本有多高，财政有多吃紧——尤其是在州一级，如果你追踪过去二三十年公共教育支出和监禁支出的变化，比如，入狱人数增加和公立大学资助减少之间几乎存在直接的关联。所以有财政方面的担忧。
You've got a libertarian strand of conservatives who really believe why is it the government’s business if somebody is taking -- smoking pot, let’s say, and why would we want to jail them for 20 years? You've got a very sincere evangelical movement that oftentimes is involved in reentry programs or prison ministries, and so have embraced the idea of a second chance. 还有保守派中的自由意志主义分支，他们真心认为，如果有人抽——比如说大麻——关政府什么事，为什么要把他们关上20年？还有非常真诚的福音派运动，他们经常参与重返社会项目或监狱事工，因此接受了第二次机会的理念。
And so you combine that with law enforcement that I think has begun to recognize that a lot of how we have prosecuted the war on drugs has been unproductive, and that recidivism is inevitable if people are getting no skills. They're incarcerated for decades, and then we're just releasing them with no possible support. And then the long-standing progressive view that a lot of our criminal justice system has been tainted by racial discrimination and class bias. All those things are converging. 再加上执法部门，我认为他们已经开始认识到，我们发动禁毒战争的很多方式都是徒劳的，如果人们学不到任何技能，累犯就是不可避免的。他们被监禁几十年，然后我们就这样把他们放出去，没有任何支持。还有进步派长期以来的观点，认为我们的刑事司法系统在很多方面受到了种族歧视和阶级偏见的玷污。所有这些因素都在汇合。
And so now we've got some really interesting coalitions. You’ve got the ACLU and the Koch brothers agreeing on this, which does not happen often. Dick Durbin has been one of the key leaders in the Senate in shaping a criminal justice reform bill that has a real chance of passage. And I think it’s really important to understand the nomination process with Judge Garland is not holding back our ability to move forward. 所以现在我们有了一些非常有趣的联盟。美国公民自由联盟和科赫兄弟在这个问题上意见一致，这可不常见。迪克·德宾是参议院中塑造刑事司法改革法案的关键领导人之一，这项法案有真正通过的机会。而且我认为非常重要的一点是要明白，加兰法官的提名程序并没有阻碍我们推进其他事务的能力。
It would be one thing if Mitch McConnell was saying, man, it’s going to take so long to schedule all the hearings and the votes, and we won’t have time because we're just so busy that we can't then do criminal justice instead. But since there has been a spike in the number of days off in this Congress, and, typically, a judicial confirmation takes less than three months from the time that person is nominated -- Judge Alito, for example, took 82 days -- this is something that shouldn’t prevent us from getting done the criminal justice issues. 如果米奇·麦康奈尔说，哎呀，安排所有听证会和投票要花太长时间，我们太忙了，没时间去做刑事司法改革的事，那还说得过去。但既然这届国会的休假日数大幅增加，而且通常来说，从提名到确认一位法官用不了三个月——比如阿利托法官只用了82天——所以这件事不应该妨碍我们完成刑事司法方面的工作。
I think what’s been tougher is just managing the traditional politics around being soft on crime versus being tough on crime. And right now because crime rates -- sadly except for in certain neighborhoods in Chicago and a few other cities -- have been going down in ways that are remarkable and nobody can fully explain, there is less profit in saying I’m going to be tough on crime. 我认为更难的是如何处理传统的政治问题，即在对犯罪"软弱"还是"强硬"之间做文章。目前，因为犯罪率——遗憾的是芝加哥某些社区和其他少数城市除外——一直在下降，下降幅度惊人，而且没人能完全解释原因，所以宣称"我要对犯罪采取强硬态度"的政治收益减少了。
But there is always a hesitance on the part of legislators because very rarely is a politician punished for having been too tough on crime and sentencing. But occasionally, á la Willie Horton, they feel that a vote that can be perceived as lenient might come back to bite them. 但立法者总是犹豫不决，因为很少有政客因为对犯罪和量刑过于强硬而受到惩罚。但偶尔，就像威利·霍顿事件那样，他们会觉得一张可能被认为是"宽大"的选票会反过来咬他们一口。
The good news is that, so far at least, people have stuck with it. And I’m modestly optimistic that we can get something done this year. It won’t solve the problem of mass incarceration -- because that was a process that took 20, 30 years to get to where we are now, where we account for 5 percent of the world’s population and 25 percent of the world’s prisoners, so it’s going to take some time to reverse. But the legislation that's pending right now provides meaningful reductions in the standards for sentencing around nonviolent drug crimes. 好消息是，至少到目前为止，人们还在坚持。我对今年能做成一些事情持适度乐观的态度。这不会解决大规模监禁的问题——因为这个问题花了二三十年才发展到今天这个地步，我们占世界人口的5%，却占世界囚犯的25%，所以扭转这一局面也需要时间。但目前待决的立法对非暴力毒品犯罪的量刑标准做出了有意义的下调。
It does some very important work in terms of reentry, diversion programs. It breaks this psychology that we just have to lock people up in order to keep ourselves safe. 它在重返社会、转处项目方面做了一些非常重要的工作。它打破了我们只有把人关起来才能保证自身安全的心理。
One last element to this that has been interesting is the opioids crisis that some of you may have read about. Right now painkillers -- overdoses of people taking painkillers kills more people than traffic accidents. It’s a remarkable statistic. There has been this huge spike in painkiller addiction, which is then leading to heroin addiction, because oftentimes heroin is cheaper than painkillers. And four out of five people who get addicted to heroin start their addiction with OxyContin or some other painkiller addiction. 还有一个有趣的最后因素，就是你们中有些人可能读到过的阿片类药物危机。目前止痛药——服用止痛药过量致死的人比交通事故还多。这是一个惊人的统计数字。止痛药成瘾人数大幅激增，进而导致海洛因成瘾，因为海洛因往往比止痛药便宜。五分之四对海洛因上瘾的人都是从奥施康定或其他止痛药成瘾开始的。
And unlike crack, it’s not just affecting inner-city African American or Latino communities. It’s widespread. It’s pervasive. It’s seeping into rural areas. And it’s a tragic issue that we are really spending a lot of time focused on. 而且快克不同，它不只是影响市中心的非裔或拉丁裔社区。它传播很广。无处不在。它正在渗透到农村地区。这是一个悲剧性的问题，我们确实花了很多时间来关注。
But what’s interesting is, is that the politics of this changes a little bit where when elected officials see kids who are like their kids getting hooked and going through these terrible things, there’s been a greater predisposition to think of this as a public health issue rather than a criminal justice and incarceration issue. 但有趣的是，这其中的政治因素发生了一些变化，当民选官员看到像他们自己的孩子一样的孩子染上毒瘾、经历这些可怕的事情时，他们更倾向于认为这是一个公共卫生问题，而不是刑事司法和监禁问题。
And that's -- I’m just being blunt -- that's the truth. But it actually has had an impact in terms of an openness I think to re-examining some of our drug laws. 这——我就直说了——这是事实。但这确实产生了影响，我认为让人们更愿意重新审视我们的一些毒品法律。
Good question. I’m sure your question eight years ago was really good, too. 好问题。我相信你八年前的问题也一定很好。
All right, I’m going to go boy-girl-boy-girl just to make sure this is fair. We monitor these things. Yes, gentleman right here, in the tie. You. Yes, you look sharp. Do you wear a tie every day to class? That's good, man. 好了，我要按男-女-男-女的顺序来，确保公平。我们很注意这些的。是的，那边那位打领带的先生。就是你。你看起来很精神。你每天上课都打领带吗？不错啊，兄弟。
Question: I’m Jimmy. I’m also a 1L. I’ve never asked you a question before. 提问者：我叫吉米。我也是一年级新生。我以前从没向您提过问题。
President Obama: Okay. 奥巴马总统：好的。
Question: So this might not go very well. But I’ve written it down so hopefully I can read it. Mr. President, we are currently in the midst of a polarizing, political election cycle dividing both major parties along populist and establishment fault lines. Do you anticipate this divergence within the Democratic Party widening to the extent we saw with the tea party’s emergence within the ranks of the Republican Party? And if not, what do you worry about for the future of the Democratic Party? 提问者：所以可能会问得不太好。但我写下来了，希望能念出来。总统先生，我们目前正处在一个两极分化的政治选举周期中，两大政党都在民粹主义和建制派的断层线上分裂。您是否认为民主党内的这种分歧会扩大到我们在共和党内部看到的茶党崛起那样的程度？如果不会，您对民主党的未来有什么担忧？
President Obama: Short answer is, no, I don't. The cleavages inside the Democratic Party are not comparable to what we're seeing in the Republican Party right now. The argument inside the Democratic Party is a little bit more about means, less about ends. 奥巴马总统：简短的回答是，不，我不这么认为。民主党内部的分歧与我们目前在共和党看到的情况不可同日而语。民主党内部的争论更多是关于手段，而不是目标。
If you look at our two Democratic candidates, they believe that everybody should get health care. They believe that every child should get a good education. They believe that climate change is real and that we should do something about it. They believe in equality for the LGBT community. Right? If you go through the list, there’s not a huge divergence there. 如果你看看我们的两位民主党候选人，他们都认为每个人都应该获得医疗保健。他们都认为每个孩子都应该接受良好的教育。他们都认为气候变化是真实存在的，我们应该为此采取行动。他们都支持LGBT群体的平等权利。对吧？如果你一条条列出来，分歧并没有那么大。
I think that in the Democratic Party, there is a populist impulse that grows out of what I also think has happened for folks who are voting in the Republican primary, this frustration in the wake of the financial crisis and the bottom falling out for people who lost their jobs, or lost their homes, or lost their pensions; that the world is moving fast, the ground is not firm under their feet. And even before that crisis, wages and incomes were not going up at the same pace as productivity, corporate profits, and so forth. And so there is a sense the game is rigged. 我认为在民主党内，存在一种民粹主义的冲动，这种冲动也源于我认为共和党初选选民中同样存在的情况——金融危机后的挫败感，人们失去了工作、失去了房子、失去了养老金，感觉天塌下来了；世界变化太快，脚下的土地不再稳固。甚至在那场危机之前，工资和收入的增长速度就跟不上生产率、企业利润等等的增长。所以人们有一种"游戏被操纵了"的感觉。
And we have to more fundamentally change that game, that system -- whether it’s Wall Street, or how Washington operates, or what have you. 我们必须更从根本上改变这个游戏、这个体系——无论是华尔街，还是华盛顿的运作方式，诸如此类。
Some of that impulse is healthy. I think you want people to be asking hard questions about injustice economically and the way that insiders in the political process may not fully represent the interest of everyone. 这种冲动中有一些是健康的。我认为你希望人们对经济上的不公正、对政治进程中的内部人士可能没有充分代表每个人利益的问题提出尖锐的质疑。
The danger, whether for Democrats or Republicans, is in a closed-loop system where everybody is just listening to the people who agree with them, that you start thinking the way to get to where I want to go is to simply be as uncompromising as possible, and hold the line, and not pay attention or listen to what the other side has to say. And that is sort of a tea party mentality. 危险在于，无论对民主党还是共和党来说，在一个闭环系统中，每个人都只听与自己意见一致的人的话，你就会开始认为，达到我目标的方法就是尽可能地不妥协，守住底线，不去关注或倾听对方的意见。这有点像茶党的心态。
And that anybody who suggests, well, there’s another point of view, or there’s a whole half of the country that completely disagrees with us that we have to work with, well, then you must be a sellout, or you must be corrupted, or you must be on the take, or what have you. 而任何提出"还有另一种观点"，或者"还有半个国家的人和我们意见完全不同，我们必须与他们合作"的人，那你一定是叛徒，或者你一定腐败了，或者你一定被收买了，等等。
And that is not, I think, useful. It’s not say that there isn’t corruption, that there isn’t compromise -- people compromising principles for less-than-noble means, et cetera. Those things happen and they should be called out. 我认为这是没有益处的。这并不是说不存在腐败，不存在妥协——人们为不那么高尚的目的而牺牲原则，等等。这些事情确实存在，也应该被指出来。
But a lot of the reason why a lot of Democrats who supported me and still support me got frustrated is because a bunch of the country doesn't agree with me or them, and they have votes, too, and they elect members of Congress. And that's how our democracy works. It’s not a situation, if you don't get everything you want, it’s always because the person you elected sold you out. It may just be because in our system you send up taking half loaves. 但很多支持我、现在仍然支持我的民主党人感到沮丧的原因是，这个国家有很多人不同意我或他们的观点，而这些人也有投票权，他们也选举国会议员。这就是我们民主的运作方式。不是说如果你得不到你想要的一切，就总是因为你选的人出卖了你。可能只是因为在我们的制度中，你只能接受半个面包。
I could not be prouder of the Affordable Care Act, but it was a messy process. It doesn't have a public option. It’s not single-payer. If I were designing a system from scratch, I would have designed a more elegant system and a more efficient system. But that's not what was possible in our democracy -- in the same way that Social Security when it first started was a meagerly program providing benefits to just a few people and historically cut out for purely racist reasons domestic servants or sharecroppers or what have you. And then over time you kept on improving it. 我对《平价医疗法案》感到无比自豪，但这个过程非常混乱。它没有公共选项。它不是单一支付制。如果我从头设计一个体系，我会设计一个更优雅、更高效的体系。但那在我们的民主中是不可能的——就像社会保障制度刚开始的时候，只是一个微不足道的项目，只给少数人提供福利，而且历史上出于纯粹的种族主义原因把家政工人或佃农等排除在外。然后随着时间的推移，你不断改进它。
That's how change generally happens. 变革通常就是这样发生的。
And I think the thing that Democrats have to guard against is going in the direction that the Republicans are much further along on, and that is this sense of we are just going to get our way, and if we don't, then we'll cannibalize our own and then kick them out and try again, and we narrow our viewpoints more and more until finally we stake out positions that are so extreme that they alienate the broad public. 我认为民主党人必须警惕的是，不要走上共和党人已经走得更远的那条路，也就是那种"我们就是要按自己的方式来，如果不行，我们就吃掉自己人，把他们踢出去，再来一次，我们不断缩小自己的观点范围，直到最后我们的立场极端到让广大公众都疏远我们"的感觉。
I don't see that being where the Democrats go. But it's always something that we have to pay attention to. 我不认为民主党会走到那一步。但这始终是我们必须警惕的事情。
Question: Thank you so much for being here. I'd like to know how have your views on the Supreme Court nomination process changed since you taught constitutional law here at the University of Chicago. 提问者：非常感谢您来到这里。我想知道，自从您在芝加哥大学教宪法以来，您对最高法院提名程序的看法有什么变化？
President Obama: My views on how it should work hasn’t changed. My views on how it currently works obviously are a source of frustration. 奥巴马总统：我对它应该如何运作的看法没有改变。我对它目前如何运作的看法显然是令人沮丧的来源。
Look, just to kind of wrap up this Supreme Court conversation, I think it is perfectly acceptable for Republicans to decide that even though Merrick Garland is highly qualified, even though he’s indisputably a good and fair judge, even though he’s gotten the highest ratings from all the bar organizations and others that have examined his record, that I just don't agree with him on X, Y, Z, and I'm going to vote against him because I believe in something different on important issues. 这么说吧，作为这次最高法院讨论的收尾，我认为共和党人完全可以决定，尽管梅里克·加兰非常合格，尽管他无疑是一位优秀公正的法官，尽管他获得了所有律师协会和其他审查过他记录的机构的最高评级，但我就是在某些问题上不同意他，我要投反对票，因为我在重要问题上有不同的信念。
What’s not acceptable is not giving him a vote, not giving him a hearing, not meeting with him. What’s not acceptable, I believe, is the increasing use of the filibuster for somebody who’s clearly within the mainstream, or to essentially say that we are going to nullify the ability of a President who is from another party from making an appointment. And we're going to wait to see if maybe we can get a guy from our party to make the appointment. That is where you have a process foul that corrodes the ability of the Court to function effectively. 不可接受的是不给他投票，不给他听证会，不与他会面。我认为不可接受的是，越来越多地对明显属于主流的人使用阻挠议事，或者实质上说，我们要否决另一政党总统的任命权。我们要等着看能不能让我们党内的人来任命。这才是程序上的违规，它会腐蚀法院有效运作的能力。
If you play out how much of a problem this could end up being -- if, in fact, Mitch McConnell sticks to not giving a hearing and not giving a vote, and let’s say, from their perspective, everything works out great and their nominee, whoever that might be, wins and takes over the White House, and they, then, make an appointment -- the notion that Democrats would then say, oh, well, we'll just go along with that -- that is inconceivable. Right? 如果你推演一下这最终会成为多大的问题——事实上，如果米奇·麦康奈尔坚持不举行听证会也不投票，假设从他们的角度来看一切顺利，他们的候选人，不管是谁，赢了并入主白宫，然后他们做出任命——难道民主党人会说，哦，好吧，我们就接受吧——这是不可想象的。对吧？
So now the Democrats say, well, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, we'll wait four more years to see how the next President comes in, at which point what’s most likely then is Mitch McConnell will then eliminate the filibuster possibility for Supreme Court justices, as it was eliminated for the other judicial appointments. And now it's just a majoritarian exercise inside the Senate of who controls the presidency and who controls the Senate. 那么到时候民主党人会说，以其人之道还治其人之身，我们也再等四年，看看下一任总统是谁，到那时最有可能的结果是，米奇·麦康奈尔会取消最高法院大法官任命的阻挠议事权，就像其他司法任命已经取消的那样。然后这就变成了参议院内部的多数主义游戏，看谁掌控总统职位，谁掌控参议院。
And if different parties control the White House and the Senate during that period of time, you're not going to get any appointments done -- which is a disaster for the courts, generally. 如果在那段时间里，白宫和参议院由不同政党控制，那就任何任命都做不成——这对整个法院系统来说都是一场灾难。
For two reasons. One is, there’s a lot of work that needs to get done and you need judges. And right now, there are emergency situations in districts across the country. But the second thing that happens is people will, at that point, just become more and more cynical about decisions that are coming down from the Court. They’re already cynical because so much of so many opinions just end up being straight 5-4, and it starts feeling like this is just a partisan alignment. But it gets much worse under these circumstances. 原因有二。一是有很多工作需要完成，你需要法官。现在全国各地的地区法院都有紧急情况。但第二件事是，到那个时候，人们会对最高法院的裁决越来越持怀疑态度。他们已经持怀疑态度了，因为很多判决最终都是5比4的结果，开始让人觉得这只是党派站队。但在这种情况下情况会变得更糟。
People then just view the courts as an extension of our political parties -- polarized political parties. 那时人们就会把法院仅仅视为我们政党的延伸——两极分化的政党的延伸。
And if confidence in the courts consistently breaks down, then you start seeing our attitudes about democracy generally starting to break down, a legitimacy breaking down in ways that are very dangerous. 如果对法院的信心持续崩溃，那么我们对民主的整体态度也会开始崩溃，合法性会以非常危险的方式瓦解。
It's a gentleman’s turn. Right here in the front. I am impressed by the way you guys did all get dressed up. Was there a memo sent out? Did the Dean say, you guys, we want you to all -- because you aren't going to class like this. I know. I remember. 该这位先生了。前排的这位。你们都盛装打扮，给我留下了深刻印象。是发了通知吗？还是院长说，你们都要——因为你们上课肯定不会穿成这样。我知道。我记得的。
Question: Hello, Mr. President. Thank you very much for being here with us today. I'm a 2L here at the law school. My question for you is, what sorts of constitutional questions were at the forefront of your mind when deciding who your nominee should be? And what sorts of constitutional questions do you think Americans should be asking themselves when assessing your selection and thinking about the 2016 presidential election? 提问者：您好，总统先生。非常感谢您今天来到这里。我是法学院二年级学生。我的问题是，在决定提名人选时，您脑海中最优先考虑的是哪些宪法问题？以及您认为美国人在评估您的选择、思考2016年总统选举时，应该问自己哪些宪法问题？
President Obama: Well, I will tell you, as I said before, I'm very careful not to delve too specifically into a candidate’s position on live issues. You're a well-informed 2L, you know the issues that people debate. There’s a standard set of social issues that have been roiling society and the courts for a long time -- whether it's LGBT rights, or abortion, or civil rights. 奥巴马总统：我会告诉你，正如我之前所说，我非常小心，不过度深究候选人在当前议题上的立场。你是个见多识广的二年级学生，知道人们争论的议题有哪些。有一系列长期以来一直困扰社会和法院的社会议题——无论是LGBT权利、堕胎还是民权。
What’s interesting is there are a set of new issues that are going to be coming up that, for your generation, I think are going to be increasingly salient. One great example is this whole debate around encryption, which I think is just the tip of the iceberg of what we're going to have to figure out. In a society in which so much of your life is digitized, people have a whole new set of privacy expectations that are understandable. 有趣的是，将会出现一系列新的议题，对你们这一代人来说，我认为这些议题会变得越来越重要。一个很好的例子就是关于加密的整个争论，我认为这只是我们将要解决的问题的冰山一角。在一个你的生活大部分都数字化的社会里，人们有了一系列全新的隐私期待，这是可以理解的。
They also expect, though, that since their lives are all digitized, that the digital world is safe, which creates a contradictory demand on government -- protect me from hackers, protect me from terrorists, protect me from et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, but I don't want you to know any of your [sic] business and I don't even want you to have the ability to investigate some of that business when it happens because there’s broader implications and we're worried about Big Brother. And so there’s going to be a whole series of issues around that that I think will be coming up. 但他们也期望，既然他们的生活都数字化了，数字世界就应该是安全的，这就对政府产生了矛盾的要求——保护我免受黑客攻击，保护我免受恐怖分子伤害，保护我免受这个那个伤害，但我不想让你知道我的任何事，我甚至不想让你有能力在事情发生时调查其中的一些情况，因为有更广泛的影响，我们担心"老大哥"。所以围绕这一点将会有一系列的问题，我认为这些问题会逐渐浮现。
I think there are a range of economic issues that date back very far, to the earliest days of the Court and were prominent during the Great Depression and FDR’s era that have gone into abeyance -- people don't pay attention to them as much in terms of monopoly concentration, or antitrust issues, et cetera -- but I think in this current environment are going to be coming more prominent over time. 我认为还有一系列经济问题，可以追溯到很久以前，追溯到最高法院的早期，在大萧条和罗斯福时代非常突出，但后来被搁置了——人们对垄断集中、反垄断问题等关注减少了——但我认为在当前环境下，这些问题会随着时间的推移变得更加突出。
And then, political participation issues and voting issues I think, and money in politics issues -- that's a whole series of issues that I do believe are an important role for the Court to play. Because if we're not effectively setting the rules of the political process, if that is delegitimized, then whatever outcomes are generated are subject to just endless contention. 然后，政治参与问题和投票问题，我认为，还有金钱政治问题——这是一系列我确实认为法院应该发挥重要作用的问题。因为如果我们不能有效地制定政治进程的规则，如果这被去合法化，那么由此产生的任何结果都会遭到无休止的争议。
And this is separate from the judiciary. This is your President editorializing. We really are the only advanced democracy on Earth that systematically and purposely makes it really hard for people to vote. And we sort of take it for granted. I mean, we sort of just assume, yeah, that's I guess how it is. There’s no other country on Earth that does that. 这不只是司法部门的事。这是你们的总统在发表个人观点。我们真的是地球上唯一一个系统性地、刻意地让人们很难投票的发达民主国家。而我们对此习以为常。我的意思是，我们就只是觉得，是啊，大概就是这样吧。地球上没有其他国家这么做。
And there’s a legacy to that that grows directly out of a history in which first property men, then white men, then white folks didn’t want women, minorities to participate in the political process and be able to empower themselves in that fashion. 这有一个历史遗留问题，直接源于这样一段历史：最初是有财产的男性，然后是白人男性，然后是白人，不希望女性、少数族裔参与政治进程，不希望他们以这种方式获得权力。
Now, that's the history. We should be a society in which, at this point, we said, yeah, that history wasn’t so good, that's not who we are, and there was a Civil War fought about all this stuff, and we passed a whole series of laws like the Voting Rights Act, and at this point we should be at the point where we say, you know what, we want everybody to vote because that's the essence of our democracy. But we have not just federal laws, but state laws, that unabashedly discourage people from voting -- which is why we have some of the lowest voting rates of any advanced democracy in the world. 现在，这就是历史。到了今天，我们本应是这样一个社会：我们会说，是啊，那段历史并不光彩，那不是我们的本色，我们为此打了一场内战，我们通过了《投票权法案》等一系列法律，到了现在我们应该可以说，你知道吗，我们希望每个人都投票，因为这是我们民主的本质。但我们不仅有联邦法律，还有州法律，明目张胆地阻止人们投票——这就是为什么我们的投票率在所有发达民主国家中垫底。
And that's a problem. That's not something that -- I'm saying that to Congress, as well as to the presidency, as well as to governors, as well as state legislators, as well as to courts. That can't be right! There’s no justification for that! You can't defend it! 这是个问题。这不只是——我对国会这么说，对总统班子这么说，对州长们这么说，对州议员们这么说，对法院也这么说。这不可能是对的！没有任何理由！你无法为它辩护！
And I've always said -- and this goes back to the young man’s question earlier about political polarization -- maybe the single biggest change that we could make in our political process that would reduce some of the polarization, make people feel more invested, restore integrity to the system, would be just make sure everybody is voting. Australia has got mandatory voting. You start getting 70-80 percent voting rates, that's transformative. 我一直说——这回到了前面那位年轻人关于政治两极分化的问题——也许我们能对政治进程做出的最大改变，能减少一些两极分化、让人们更有参与感、恢复制度完整性的改变，就是确保每个人都投票。澳大利亚有强制投票制。当投票率达到70%到80%时，那是变革性的。
All right. How much time do we have, by the way? How many? 好了。顺便问一下，我们还有多少时间？还能问几个？
Moderator: Time for one more. 主持人：还能再问一个。
President Obama: We'll take two. The young lady in the green, right there in the sweater. Yes, that's you. Yes. You didn’t remember what you were wearing today, did you? 奥巴马总统：我们回答两个。那位穿绿毛衣的年轻女士，就是你。对，就是你。你都忘了你今天穿的什么了吧？
Question: So I think we can agree that in our nation, we celebrate diversity. Diversity of ethnicity is the basis, the background. And I'm just wondering -- well, of course, U of Chicago is a diversity of ideas. I'm just wondering what diverse characteristics Judge Garland would bring to the Supreme Court. 提问者：我想我们都同意，在我们国家，我们颂扬多样性。族裔多样性是基础，是背景。我只是想知道——当然，芝加哥大学是思想的多样性。我想知道加兰法官会给最高法院带来哪些多元的特质？
President Obama: Well, he’s from Skokie -- which is very important. It's a great place. It's a great town. 奥巴马总统：这个嘛，他来自斯科基——这很重要。那是个好地方。很棒的小镇。
The way I've thought about diversity is not to think about any single seat as, oh, I've got to fill this slot with this demographic, but rather if I've got a broad set of nominees to make -- and this is true across the board -- how do I make sure that I'm intentional throughout that process so that the talent of every American is, and every potential candidate gets a fair look, and I have confidence that if I stick to that, if I do that, if I make sure that I'm broadening the search, broadening the pool, 我对多样性的看法是，不是把每个席位都想成"哦，我得用这个人口统计群体的人来填补这个位置"，而是如果我有一大批提名要做——这在所有领域都是如此——我如何确保在整个过程中我是有意识地去做的，这样每个美国人的才华、每个潜在的候选人都能得到公平的审视，而且我有信心，如果我坚持这样做，如果我这样做了，如果我确保我在扩大搜索范围、扩大人才池，
looking at a bunch of folks even if they’re not going through the conventional paths, that I'll end up -- the process will result in diversity. 去关注很多人，即使他们没有走传统的路径，那么最终——这个过程会产生多样性。
And that, in fact, is what’s happened. I am -- not to brag, but I have transformed the federal courts from a diversity standpoint with a record that's been unmatched. We've got more African Americans on the circuit courts than we ever has before. We've got -- I've appointed more African American women to the federal courts than any other President before. I've appointed more Latinos than any President before. I've appointed more Native Americans, more Asian Americans, more LGBT judges than ever before. 而事实上，结果就是这样。我不是要吹嘘，但从多样性的角度来看，我已经以无可匹敌的记录改变了联邦法院的面貌。我们巡回法院的非裔美国法官比以往任何时候都多。我们——我任命的非裔美国女性联邦法官比之前任何一位总统都多。我任命的拉丁裔法官比之前任何一位总统都多。我任命的印第安裔、亚裔、LGBT法官都比以往任何时候都多。
But at no point did I say, oh, you know what, I need a black lesbian from Skokie -- in that slot. Can you find me one? I mean, that's just not how I've approached it. It turns out that if the process is fair and you are saying that it's important that our courts are reflective of a changing society, you’ll end up with a really good cross-section of people who are excellent. And that's who we've been able to appoint. 但我从来没有说过，哦，你知道吗，我需要一个来自斯科基的黑人女同性恋——来填补这个位置。你能给我找一个吗？我是说，这不是我做事的方式。事实证明，如果过程是公平的，而且你认为我们的法院应该反映不断变化的社会这一点很重要，你最终会得到一个非常好的、优秀的多元人才组合。这就是我们能够任命的人选。
And so, when I looked at Merrick Garland, that was the person that -- the difference between the Supreme Court is just a handful of seats come up at any given time now. I appointed a Latino woman and another woman right before that, so, yeah, he’s a white guy, but he’s a really outstanding jurist. Sorry. I think that's important. 所以当我考虑梅里克·加兰时，他就是那个人——最高法院的不同之处在于，每次只有少数几个席位空缺。我之前任命了一位拉丁裔女性大法官，再之前还有一位女性大法官，所以，是的，他是个白人男性，但他是一位非常杰出的法学家。抱歉。我认为这一点很重要。
But this speaks to the broader debate about diversity that I think is important and obviously churns up in college campuses a lot. The question is, have you set up a process and are you intentional about giving everybody a shot? And are you thinking about roadblocks to why we're not seeing a more diverse population? And when you start asking those questions -- in whatever institution. I mean, I just met with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combatant Commanders, our key military leaders. And the U.S. 但这涉及到更广泛的关于多样性的争论，我认为这很重要，而且显然在大学校园里也经常引起热议。问题是，你是否建立了一个流程，并且有意识地努力给每个人机会？你是否在思考为什么我们看不到更多元化的人群，障碍在哪里？当你开始问这些问题时——无论在什么机构。我的意思是，我刚和参谋长联席会议主席以及作战指挥官们见过面，我们的主要军事领导人。
military, interestingly, has probably done as good of a job as any institution in our society when it comes to integration and bringing diverse people in, but, as you go up the ranks, you start seeing that it becomes less and less reflective of the broader population and the troops, the men and women in uniform who are coming in. 美国军方，有趣的是，在融合和吸纳多元人才方面，可能做得和我们社会中任何机构一样好，但是，当你往上走，你会发现它越来越不能反映更广泛的人口和士兵——那些入伍的男女军人——的构成。
And so we had a really interesting conversation about what’s happening? How much of this is that the young African American or Latino officer, or woman officer isn't mentored by the person right above them, and steered into particular assignments that are less likely to achieve a promotion? And what can we do about a different set of financial burdens that may exist? 所以我们进行了一次非常有趣的对话，讨论这是怎么回事？有多少是因为年轻的非裔或拉丁裔军官，或女性军官，没有得到她们上级的指导，被安排到不太可能获得晋升的特定岗位上？我们能做些什么来解决可能存在的不同经济负担？
And if a lot of those folks are going in as enlisted men and women, because that's the opportunity that was presented to them and nobody told them they could apply to West Point, what are we doing to find outstanding enlisteds, and saying, you’d make a good officer and we're going to groom you? 如果很多人是以士兵身份入伍的，因为这是他们能得到的机会，而且没人告诉他们可以申请西点军校，那我们在做什么来发掘优秀的士兵，告诉他们，你会成为一名好军官，我们会培养你？
And all of that -- that's not as satisfying as, when it comes to publicity, as just checking a box and saying, look, I appointed this person or that person in any particular slot. But that's where you start changing systems, and you start changing institutions, and you end up with a really broad-based change in access. And that's something that I really care deeply about because, just as is true in the military, it's true generally. Look, our society is changing. 所有这些——在公众宣传方面，这不如直接勾选一个框然后说"看，我在这个位置上任命了这个人或那个人"来得令人满意。但这才是你开始改变制度、改变机构的方式，最终你会在机会方面实现真正广泛的改变。这是我非常深切关心的事情，因为军队是这样，其他地方也是如此。听着，我们的社会在变化。
You cannot have a successful America if we are leaving out big chunks of the population from opportunity and leadership. It just doesn’t work. 如果我们把大部分人口排除在机会和领导层之外，美国就不可能成功。这行不通。
And it's the same argument I make internationally in countries that are still repressing women -- saying, your society cannot work, it doesn’t work if more than half your population is constrained. If the half of that population that is most likely to be raising your children and teaching the next generation is not getting opportunity, your society will fail over the long term. And that's just true generally. 我在国际上对那些仍然压迫女性的国家也说同样的话——我说，你们的社会行不通，如果超过一半的人口受到束缚，社会就不可能运转。如果人口中最有可能抚养孩子、教育下一代的那一半人得不到机会，你们的社会长期来看一定会失败。这是普遍的真理。
All right, one last question. 好了，最后一个问题。
Question: What happens -- 提问者：会发生什么——
President Obama: Excuse me, you were not called on. And you are a journalist. And I'm calling on students. So, thank you very much. This wasn’t a press conference. 奥巴马总统：抱歉，我没有点你。而且你是记者。我点的是学生。非常感谢。这不是新闻发布会。
So, let’s just see -- it's a gentleman’s turn. This gentleman right there. 那我们看看——该这位先生了。那边那位先生。
Question: Hi, my name is Seth. I'm a 3L. If you don't mind me reading my question -- 提问者：您好，我叫塞思。我是三年级学生。如果您不介意我念一下我的问题——
President Obama: It's okay. This is what I was saying about you guys and your phones. By the way, are you now -- I'm assuming you can't carry your phones into court, can you? 奥巴马总统：没关系。这就是我刚才说的你们和你们手机的事。对了，你们现在——我猜你们不能把手机带进法庭吧？
Question: Actually, it depends. 提问者：其实，要看情况。
President Obama: I'm going to say, you guys might want to practice -- 奥巴马总统：我得说，你们可能得练习练习——
Question: I'll try to work on that. So one issue that Judge Garland would likely never be able to consider if he were confirmed concerns the President’s authority to conduct drone strikes away from active battlefields. And these are strikes that you have continuously authorized on the basis of vague legal standards that you unilaterally deem to be satisfied in each case without ever appearing before a court, and in the process killing hundreds of innocent civilians as well as, in some cases, American citizens. 提问者：我会努力的。那么有一个问题，如果加兰法官获得确认，他可能永远都不会考虑的一个问题，就是总统在活跃战场之外开展无人机袭击的权力。而这些袭击是您不断授权的，依据的是模糊的法律标准，您在每一个案件中单方面认定这些标准得到了满足，从未经过法院审理，在此过程中造成了数百名无辜平民死亡，在某些情况下还有美国公民。
So my question is, how are these killings morally and legally justified? And what kind of message does this drone program send about America’s values to the world, the American people, and to law students like myself who refuse to put our trust in an opaque process? 所以我的问题是，这些杀戮在道德和法律上如何站得住脚？这个无人机项目向世界、向美国人民、向像我这样拒绝信任一个不透明程序的法学院学生，传递了怎样的美国价值观的信息？
President Obama: I think that's a great question -- although I will say that I will dispute some of the underlying premises that you asserted as facts. But I think it's an important topic, and it's a fair one. 奥巴马总统：我认为这是个很好的问题——不过我得说，我会对你作为事实陈述的一些前提提出异议。但我认为这是一个重要的话题，也是一个合理的问题。
When I came into office, we were still in the midst of two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. And in the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan, al Qaida was still highly active. And drone technologies began to develop in parallel with -- had developed prior to my presidency, but started to really accelerate in terms of the technology and the precision with which strikes could be taken. 我就职时，我们仍在两场战争中，伊拉克和阿富汗。在阿富汗和巴基斯坦之间的边境地区，基地组织仍然非常活跃。无人机技术在我就任前就已经发展了，但开始真正加速发展，技术和打击的精确度都在提升。
And the challenge for me as Commander-in-Chief has consistently been how do you think about this new technology in a way that is consistent with morality, ideals, laws of war, but is also consistent with my first priority as President and Commander-in-Chief, which is to keep all of you safe, including you. 作为总司令，我面临的挑战一直是，如何思考这项新技术，使其既符合道德、理想和战争法，又符合我作为总统和总司令的首要职责，也就是保护你们所有人的安全，包括你。
And so I think it’s fair to say that in the first couple of years of my presidency, the architecture -- legal architecture, administrative architecture, command structures -- around how these were utilized was underdeveloped relative to how fast the technology was moving. So another way of saying this is our military or our intelligence teams started seeing this as really effective. And they started just going because the goal was let’s get al Qaeda, let’s get these leaders. There’s a training camp here. There’s a high-value target there. Let’s move. 所以我认为可以公平地说，在我总统任期的头几年，关于如何使用这些武器的架构——法律架构、行政架构、指挥结构——相对于技术发展的速度来说是不完善的。换句话说，我们的军方或情报团队开始觉得这非常有效。他们就开始干了，因为目标就是消灭基地组织，消灭那些头目。这里有个训练营，那里有个高价值目标，行动吧。
And it was -- the decision-making was not ad hoc, but it was embedded in decisions that are made all the time about a commander leading a military operation, or an intelligence team trying to take out a terrorist. And there wasn’t enough of an overarching structure, right? 决策过程并不是随意的，但它被嵌入在指挥官领导军事行动、情报团队试图消灭恐怖分子这类日常决策中。没有足够的顶层架构，对吧？
So you may recall -- but if not, I’m sure we can send it to you -- I gave a speech at the National Defense University in which I said that we have to create an architecture for this because the potential for abuse -- given the remoteness of these weapons and their lethality, we've got to come up with a structure that governs how we're approaching it. And that's what we've done. So I’ve put forward what’s called a presidential directive. It’s basically a set of administrative guidelines whereby these weapons are being used. 所以你们可能还记得——如果不记得，我们可以发给你们——我在国防大学发表过一次演讲，我说我们必须为此建立一个架构，因为鉴于这些武器的远程性和致命性，滥用的潜力很大，我们必须建立一个结构来规范我们的做法。我们就是这么做的。我发布了所谓的总统指令。它基本上是一套管理这些武器使用的行政准则。
Now, we actually did put forward a non-classified version of what those directives look like. And it says that you can't use these weapons unless you have near certainty that there will not be civilian casualties; that you have near certainty that the targets you are hitting are, in fact, terrorist organizations that are intending to do imminent harm to the United States. And you've got all the agencies who are involved in that process, they have to get together and approve that. And it goes to the highest, most senior levels of our government in order for us to make those decisions. 我们实际上确实公布了这些指令的非机密版本。其中规定，除非你几乎可以确定不会造成平民伤亡，否则你不能使用这些武器；除非你几乎可以确定你打击的目标确实是意图对美国造成紧迫伤害的恐怖组织，否则也不能使用。所有参与这一进程的机构都必须共同批准。而且要上报到我们政府的最高、最资深层级，才能做出这些决定。
And what I’ve also said that we need to start creating a process whereby this -- whereby public accountability is introduced so that you or citizens or members of Congress outside of the Intelligence Committee can look at the facts and see whether or not we're abiding by what we say are these norms. 我还说过，我们需要开始建立一个程序，引入公共问责机制，这样你们或公民，或情报委员会以外的国会议员，都可以审视事实，看看我们是否遵守了我们所说的这些规范。
And we're actually -- there’s a lot of legal aspects to this because part of the problem here is, is that this drone program initially came through the intelligence side under classified programs, as opposed to the military. Part of what I’ve also said is I don't want our intelligence agencies being a paramilitary organization. That's not their function. As much as possible this should be done through our Defense Department so that we can report, here’s what we did, here’s why we did it, here’s our assessment of what happened. 实际上——这其中有很多法律层面的问题，因为部分问题在于，这个无人机项目最初是通过情报部门在机密项目下进行的，而不是通过军方。我还说过，我不希望我们的情报机构成为准军事组织。那不是他们的职能。应尽可能通过国防部来做，这样我们可以报告：我们做了什么，为什么这么做，我们对结果的评估是什么。
And so slowly we are pushing it in that direction. My hope is, is that by the time I leave office there is not only an internal structure in place that governs these standards that we’ve set, but there is also an institutionalized process whereby the actions that the U.S. government takes through drone technology are consistently reported on, on an annualized basis so that people can look. 所以我们在慢慢朝那个方向推进。我的希望是，在我离任时，不仅有一个内部架构来管理我们设定的这些标准，还有一个制度化的程序，让美国政府通过无人机技术采取的行动能够按年度持续报告，以便人们可以审视。
And the reason this is really important to me -- and this was implied in your question -- is there is a lot of misinformation about this. There is no doubt -- and I said this in an interview I think recently -- there is no doubt that some innocent people have been killed by drone strikes. It is not true that it has been this sort of willy-nilly, let’s bomb a village. That is not how folks have operated. And what I can say with great certainty is that the rate of civilian casualties in any drone operation are far lower than the rate of civilian casualties that occur in conventional war. 这对我来说之所以非常重要——这也隐含在你的问题中——是因为关于这件事有很多错误信息。毫无疑问——我最近在一次采访中也说过——毫无疑问，有一些无辜的人死于无人机袭击。但事实并非像胡乱轰炸村庄那样。这不是人们的行事方式。我可以非常肯定地说，任何无人机行动的平民伤亡率都远远低于常规战争中的平民伤亡率。
So the irony -- let’s take an example like the bin Laden raid. This was as precise, as effective an operation that I don't think anybody would dispute was in the national security interests of the United States. And we put our best people in there who operate as precisely and as effectively as any group of individuals probably ever have in the history of the planet. And they executed their mission flawlessly. But there were a number of people who were killed in that who you might describe as not the targets of the mission -- members of bin Laden’s family, for example. 讽刺的是——让我们以本·拉登突袭行动为例。这是一次如此精确、如此有效的行动，我想没有人会质疑它符合美国的国家安全利益。我们派出了最优秀的人，他们的行动可能是人类历史上最精确、最高效的。他们完美地执行了任务。但在那次行动中，也有一些人死亡，你可能会说他们不是行动的目标——比如本·拉登的家人。
Now, that would be counted as a civilian casualty under the standards from which you drew your information. And if you calculated it as a percent, there was actually a pretty high civilian casualty rate for this extraordinarily precise mission. 现在，根据你获取信息所依据的标准，这些也会被算作平民伤亡。如果你按百分比计算，这次极其精确的行动的平民伤亡率其实相当高。
Now, imagine during the height of the Iraq war, or when we were still actively fighting in Afghanistan, the number of civilians who were killed in normal military operations. We talk about the number of U.S. troops that were killed in Iraq. The number of Iraqis that were killed -- primarily by AQI and those we were fighting, but also by U.S. military that was trying to be as careful as possible in chaotic situations, like Fallujah or Ramadi -- were in the tens of thousands. 再想想伊拉克战争最激烈的时候，或者我们还在阿富汗积极作战的时候，常规军事行动造成的平民死亡人数。我们谈论在伊拉克阵亡的美军人数。而伊拉克人的死亡人数——主要是由基地组织伊拉克分支和我们的对手造成的，但也包括在费卢杰或拉马迪这样的混乱局势中，尽可能小心行事的美军造成的——数以万计。
So part of my job as President is to figure out how I can keep America safe doing the least damage possible in really tough, bad situations. And I don't have the luxury of just not doing anything and then being able to stand back and feel as if my conscience is completely clear. I have to make decisions because there are folks out there who are genuinely trying to kill us and would be happy to blow up this entire room without any compunction, and are actively trying to find ways to do it. 所以作为总统，我的部分职责就是想办法在尽可能减少伤害的情况下保障美国的安全，在非常艰难、糟糕的情况下做到这一点。我没有 luxury 什么都不做，然后站在一边觉得自己问心无愧。我必须做出决定，因为外面真的有人想杀我们，他们会毫不犹豫地炸毁这整个房间，而且他们正在积极想办法这么做。
And I wish I could just send in Iron Man -- no, no, I don't mean that as a joke. I just mean I wish that the tragedy of war, conflict, terrorism, et cetera, did not end up creating circumstances where we, wielding kinetic power, don't end up hurting anybody who shouldn’t have been hurt. 我希望我能派钢铁侠过去——不，不，我不是在开玩笑。我只是希望战争、冲突、恐怖主义等等的悲剧，最终不会造成这样的局面：我们行使武力，却伤害了不该伤害的人。
But what I try to do is to set up the system as best as I can. And I think it is very important for those who are critics of the U.S. government -- and this includes folks on the outside -- to examine the incredible progress that we've made over the course of a couple of decades. Because this conversation didn't even exist, it did not even cross the minds of people in the White House as recently as 30 or 40 years ago. I mean, it wasn’t even a factor. And we anguish over this in a very serious way. 但我尽力做的是尽可能建立最好的制度。我认为对于美国政府的批评者来说——包括外界人士——审视我们几十年来取得的巨大进步是非常重要的。因为这场对话甚至都不曾存在过，就在三四十年前，白宫的人甚至想都没想过这个问题。我的意思是，这根本不是一个考虑因素。而我们现在非常严肃地为此感到痛苦。
But what I do think is a legitimate concern is, is that the transparency issues. I think that the way that this got built up through our intelligence and what’s called our Title 50 programs meant that it did not -- it wasn’t subject to the same amount of democratic debate as when we are conducting what are called Title 10 Department of Defense conventional operations. 但我确实认为一个合理的担忧是透明度问题。我认为，这个项目是通过我们的情报部门和所谓的"第50篇"项目建立起来的，这意味着它没有像我们进行所谓的"第10篇"国防部常规行动那样，接受同等程度的民主辩论。
And that's done a disservice not only to the public being able to examine where we made mistakes and create corrective action, it’s actually also done a disservice to the incredibly dedicated men and women in intelligence and in operations who perform these operations who are subject to accusations that somehow they're irresponsible and bloodless and going around blowing up children, which is not the case. 这不仅损害了公众审视我们哪里出错了并采取纠正措施的能力，实际上也损害了情报和行动部门那些无比敬业的男女士兵的名誉，他们执行这些行动，却被指责不负责任、冷酷无情、到处炸死儿童，而事实并非如此。
And our popular media I think has been able to just project a whole bunch of scenarios that are generally not accurate. 而我们的大众媒体，我认为，一直在投射一大堆通常并不准确的情景。
I guess I should stop there. But thank you for the question. It was a legitimate one. 我想我应该说到这里了。但谢谢你的问题。这是一个合理的问题。
I’ll end where I started. Just based on the quality of the questions and your very sharp appearances -- you guys have an enormous amount to contribute. Don't let the day-to-day noise and news and frustrations with our democracy discourage you from being involved. 让我以开始时的话作为结束。仅仅从问题的质量和你们敏锐的外表来看——你们有巨大的贡献可以做。不要让日常的噪音、新闻和对我们民主的沮丧，阻止你们参与其中。
I’m phasing out of this particular part of my life. But I’ve said this before -- and I believed it when I was teaching here, I believe it even more now after having been President -- the most important office in a democracy is the office of citizen. I really believe that. Change happens when citizens are informed, are engaged, are paying attention, are asking tough questions -- asking tough questions of themselves, by the way, not just of others -- not too comfortable in whatever dogmas that we all attach ourselves to. 我正在淡出人生的这一特定阶段。但我以前说过——我在这里教书时就相信，当了总统后我更相信——民主中最重要的职位是公民这个职位。我真心相信这一点。当公民知情、参与、关注、提出尖锐问题时——顺便说一句，不仅是对别人，也是对自己——不过分沉溺于我们所有人都依附的任何教条中，变革就会发生。
And you are learning the kind of critical thinking in this school that will allow you to become really good citizens. Use it. 而你们在这所学校学到的批判性思维，将使你们能够成为真正优秀的公民。去运用它吧。
Thanks. 谢谢。
Professor Strauss: Thank you, Mr. President. 施特劳斯教授：谢谢您，总统先生。
