法院與政治：美國司法政治初探

Courts and Politics: A Visit to American Judicial Politics

民主政治主張多數統治，法律（包括憲法）由多數所制定，法院適用法律（包括憲法）不得違背多數的意志，以保障多數人的權利。而法治政治則強調司法獨立，法院適用法律（包括憲法）不受政治的控制，以保障少數人的權利，兩者在本質上是相互衝突的。司法獨立旨在避免政治掌控法院，俾法院能公平適用法律裁判爭訟，以維繫社會公義。然而根據美國政治學者的研究，美國法院，尤其是最高法院，卻可以司法獨立為名，行使司法審查權來參與政府決策。美國法官，尤其是最高法院大法官，亦可以司法中立為由，以自己的政治價值與政策偏好，來認定法律違憲。因此，如何在民主政治司法獨立的基礎上，同時確保民主政治的多數統治，以及多數人的權利，即成為美國司法政治（judicial politics）研究的主要內涵。

Democracy emphasizes that law (including the Constitution) should be made by the majority according to the principle of majority rule. The purpose of the courts to apply the law (including the Constitution) under a democracy is not to fight against the will of majority but to safeguard the rights of majority. However, the rule of law stresses that courts should be in compliance with the norm of judicial impartiality and under no political control so as to apply the law (including the Constitution) to protect the rights of minority. Thus the majority rule and rule of law are in essence contradictory in a democracy. The gist of judicial independence is to avoid the political control of court so that courts may maintain social justice by means of impartial application of law. Nevertheless, according to the researches of American political scientists, American courts, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, may in the name of judicial independence take part in government policy making by exercise of judicial review. And American judges, especially the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, may in disguise of judicial impartiality declare law unconstitutional based on personal values and policy preferences. Therefore, how to blend the principle of majority rule with the norm of judicial independence under a democracy becomes the main concerns of American judicial politics.