美国最高法院（Supreme Court）大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚（Antonin Scalia）于2月13日去世，使美国最高法院出现了一个空缺。在今后一段时间里，欧巴马总统将提名一位新的大法官人选。这位人选必须赢得美国参议院的多数票支持才能填补斯卡利亚的席位。

根据美国宪法，美国总统及国会议员是由民选产生的。他们都有具体的任期（参议员任期6年；众议员任期2年；总统任期4年，只能连任一届）。而最高法院大法官同大多数联邦法官一样，是接受任命并终身任职的。原因是什么呢？

美国宪法的起草者们认为法官应能毫无顾虑地做出不受欢迎的裁决。因此，他们决定联邦法官不经由选举产生。

在为了说服18世纪的美国民众采纳新宪法提案而发表的《联邦党人文集》中的第76篇（Federalist 76）里，亚历山大·汉密尔顿（Alexander Hamilton）反对由国会推选法官（以及大使及其他公职人员）。他写道，这么做会让立法人员掌握太多的政治筹码。

汉密尔顿建议最好由总统来选任。他为此表明的论点是，获选人的素质将直接关系到总统本人的声誉，因此总统在遴选过程中“自然会产生更切实的责任感，和对自己声誉的关切”。

但宪法也在政府三大分支之间建立了分权与制衡。倘若允许总统一人全权任命最高法院大法官，那么总统的影响力和权力可能会过大，而且任命政治亲信担任法官的诱惑力也可能会太强。

汉密尔顿指出，由立法分支确认总统提名的人选能够“形成对总统用人唯视的制约，有利于防止出于本州乡土观念、家庭关系、个人情感或哗众取宠等而作出不合宜的委任”。

下一步是什么？

为纪念最高法院大法官安东宁·斯卡利亚，美国最高法院大厦前的美国国旗降半旗。（© AP Images）

自1789年以来，参议院确认了大约四分之三的最高法院大法官人选。在进行确认投票之前，被提名人一般会到参议院司法委员会（Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary）回答委员会成员的提问。近年来，被提名人都会阐明自己的司法理念，但通常不回答如何裁决具体案例的问题。这些听证会向公众开放，很多媒体都会进行报道，并从头到尾进行电视转播。

在参议院确认填补斯卡利亚大法官席位的人选之前，最高法院将只有8名大法官。如果最高法院在某个案件上出现意见一半对一半的情况，那么下级法院对该案的裁决就会得到维持。

A Supreme Court justice has died. What happens next?

The February 13 death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia creates a vacancy on the highest U.S. court. In the days ahead, President Obama will nominate a new justice. To assume Scalia’s seat, that nominee must be confirmed by a majority vote of the U.S. Senate.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the president and members of Congress are elected to their offices. They serve a specific term of office (six years for senators; two for representatives; four for the president, who may be re-elected only once). Supreme Court justices — like most other federal judges — instead are appointed and serve for life. Why is this?

The drafters of the Constitution believed it to be important that judges, especially, be unafraid to make unpopular decisions. So they decided that members of the federal judiciary would not be elected to their positions.

In “Federalist 76,” one of a series of essays published to persuade 18th-century Americans to adopt the proposed new Constitution, Alexander Hamilton rejected having Congress choose the justices (and ambassadors and other public officials). That, he wrote, would produce too much political bargaining among legislators.

Better, he argued, if the president made the selection. In that case, Hamilton argued, the nominee’s quality would reflect directly on the president’s own reputation and “naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard” in making the selection.

But the Constitution also establishes checks and balances among the three branches of government. Were the president allowed to appoint Supreme Court justices on his own, his influence and power might be too great, and the temptation to appoint political favorites to judgeships might be too strong.

Allowing the legislative branch to confirm presidential nominees, Hamilton explained, “would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.”

What comes next?

An American flag flies at half-staff in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in honor of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. (© AP Images)

Since 1789, the Senate has confirmed about three-fourths of Supreme Court nominees. Before the confirmation vote, nominees typically appear before the Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary, where they answer questions from committee members. In recent years, nominees have explained their judicial philosophy but generally declined to explain how they would rule on specific cases. These proceedings are open to the public, widely covered by news media, and broadcast via television in their entirety.

Until the Senate confirms a nominee for Justice Scalia’s seat, the court will have only eight members. Should the court divide evenly on a case, the lower court’s decision on that case will stand.