最近在翻讀 Anthony Lewis所寫的「不得立法侵犯　蘇利文案與言論自由」一書，這是從圖書館借書時從鄰近書架上意外看到而借出的讀品。倒是在展開閱讀這本書的過程中，喚起了自己一些模糊記憶。我過往尚未讀過任何Lewis著作，但似乎一兩年前其過逝時，曾在網路上時撇見台灣報界王健壯寫過一篇介紹文。

近來思考自己未來還可以做點什麼事，曾莫名地閃過一個天真無知的念頭，出現了一個像司法線調查報導或是通俗化法律的工作想望，讓大眾（還有自己）可以更加了解司法高牆與法律內涵XD。這樣的動念來自於訂閱了法治時報上的司法八卦，又偶而被迫聽到台灣（低廉預算下）只能作沒營養的新聞談話性節目或玫瑰鈴瓏之類的開天眼柯男小五郎刑事小說電視劇。讓我私以為要寫出比當下台灣媒體記者(有過司法線記者嗎?) 更好的司法事件分析報導應該也不算難度太高的事吧？？？(大誤)

在最高法院投票表決二比九（譯文有誤，噟為七）的態勢中，何姆斯和布藍迪斯並未擁有政府和司法權力，但是他們的力量隱藏在他們的言論之中。這些言論讓我們認識到，最高法院在美國政府體系中所扮演的特殊角色。「制憲者希望，法院是個弱勢組織，既無權，也無錢。」亞歷山大漢彌爾頓如是觀察。法院擁有的唯一權力是說服（persuade）,而他們的論點已經收編了總統和國會，也讓最高法院擁有對多數人民權益的最終裁量權。而接受美國管轄的公民解釋判決，是法院的義務；但是，當法院的解釋無法使人民信服時，其判決即遭到質疑。像國會經常以通過條文來修正最高法院對早期法律的詮釋，如税法和人民權利法令等。甚至，當時最高法院對合憲性的裁決，也經常遭到駁回－－－被最高法院自己所推翻，如校園種族隔離案；而憲法修正案也更正了法院的判定政府不得向人民徵收所得稅。一旦最高法院發現某項立法或行政措施違憲時，即必須以長遠的價值觀，而非當下多數人的意願來說服人民，用政治意願來阻撓，並進而修正之。何姆斯和布藍迪斯大法官教誨人民，並說服他們，就廣義來看，言論自由正是這般的長遠價值。（Anthony Lewis「不得立法侵犯　蘇利文案與言論自由」139~140頁） Holmes and Brandeis had no political or judicial power beyond their votes on the Supreme Court, two of nine. Their power was in their rhetoric. And that tells us something about the extraordinary role of the Supreme Court in the American system of government. The Framers of the Constitution expected the Court to be weak. It had neither sword nor purse, Alexander Hamilton observed. The Court had only the power to persuade. But that has proved enough to defeat Presidents and Congresses, enough to give the Supreme Court the last word in much of American life. Its obligation is to explain its judgments to the country’s sovereign citizens. When it has failed to do so convincingly, its decisions have come under question. Congress has often passed statutes to correct th e Supreme Court’s interpretation of earlier legislation—tax provisions, for example, and civil rights laws. Even constitutional decisions have been overruled in time: by the Supreme Court itself, as in the School Segregation Case, or by a constitutional amendment, as occurred when the Court held that the government could not levy an income tax. When the Supreme Court finds a legislative or executive act unconstitutional, it must justify that thwarting of the political will by persuading us that it speaks for values more permanent than a passing majority’s wishes; values that underlie our existence as a nation. Holmes and Brandeis taught the country, and persuaded it, that freedom of speech, broadly understood, was such a value.