गे और लेस्बियन लोग हम्प सबके बराबर हैं। वे कानून के समक्ष समान संरक्षण के अधिकारी हैं, और उन्हें यह अभी मिलना चाहिए।
Gay and lesbian people are equal. They deserve equal protection of the laws, and they deserve it now.
Gay and lesbian people are equal. They deserve equal protection of the laws, and they deserve it now.
अक्सर कार्यकारी शाखा के भीतर इस बात को लेकर भारी असहमति रहती है कि हमें क्या करना चाहिए। कुछ मामले काफी सीधे होते हैं, लेकिन कई मामले ऐसे नहीं होते।
Quite often there's a great deal of disagreement within the executive branch about what we should do. Some cases are pretty straightforward, but a lot of them aren't.
Quite often there's a great deal of disagreement within the executive branch about what we should do. Some cases are pretty straightforward, but a lot of them aren't.
मेरा काम हमेशा ऐसे व्यक्ति को अपने पाले में खींचना होता था जो शुरू में कम से कम मुझसे किसी बात पर सहमत होने के लिए अनिच्छुक हो या कम से कम उस नीति से सहमत होने के लिए तैयार न हो जिसका मैं बचाव कर रहा था।
My job was always to pull a vote over from somebody who was likely to be at least at the outset disinclined to agree with me on some things or at least disinclined to agree with the policy that I was defending.
My job was always to pull a vote over from somebody who was likely to be at least at the outset disinclined to agree with me on some things or at least disinclined to agree with the policy that I was defending.
मुझे नहीं लगता कि यह ऐसी स्थिति है जहाँ यह कहा जा सके कि कांग्रेस ने कर लगाने की शक्ति का कोई जिक्र करने से परहेज किया। बात तब कुछ और होती अगर कांग्रेस ने कर लगाने की शक्ति के इस्तेमाल से साफ इनकार किया होता। लेकिन चूंकि उसने ऐसा नहीं किया है, इसलिए मुझे लगता है कि - न सिर्फ इसे कर लगाने की शक्ति के रूप में देखना उचित है, बल्कि अगर इसे इस आधार पर सही ठहराया जा सकता है, तो इस अदालत का यह कर्तव्य बनता है कि वह इसे कर लगाने की शक्ति के रूप में ही समझे।
I don't think this is a situation where you can say that Congress was avoiding any mention of the tax power. It'd be one thing if Congress explicitly disavowed an exercise of the tax power. But given that it hasn't done so, it seems to me that it's - not only is it fair to read this as an exercise of the tax power, but this court has got an obligation to construe it as an exercise of the tax power if it can be upheld on that basis.
I don't think this is a situation where you can say that Congress was avoiding any mention of the tax power. It'd be one thing if Congress explicitly disavowed an exercise of the tax power. But given that it hasn't done so, it seems to me that it's - not only is it fair to read this as an exercise of the tax power, but this court has got an obligation to construe it as an exercise of the tax power if it can be upheld on that basis.
एक बात जो मैंने अनुभव की और जिसके लिए अब इस पद से जाते हुए मैं खुद को बहुत भाग्यशाली महसूस करता हूँ, वह यह कि मुझे लगा कि उन न्यायमूर्तियों ने वह सम्मान मुझे वापस लौटा दिया। सच कहूँ तो, ऐसा वाकई हुआ। आप जानते ही हैं, कभी-कभी तीखी बहस भी हो जाती है। यह इस काम का हिस्सा है और इसमें कोई बुराई नहीं है। लेकिन कुल मिलाकर मुझे ऐसा महसूस हुआ कि उनका लहजा यह था, "हाँ। हो सकता है हम आपकी बात से सहमत न हों, और हम इस पर चर्चा करेंगे।" और सचमुच ऐसा हुआ भी था।
One thing I've experienced and I feel really grateful for now that I'm on my way out is that I felt that the justices gave that back to me. I really did. You know, of course, you can have some sharp exchanges. That's the nature of the thing, and that's fine. But really in the main I felt like the tone from them was, "Yeah. We may not agree with you, but we're going to have a discussion about this." And it did.
One thing I've experienced and I feel really grateful for now that I'm on my way out is that I felt that the justices gave that back to me. I really did. You know, of course, you can have some sharp exchanges. That's the nature of the thing, and that's fine. But really in the main I felt like the tone from them was, "Yeah. We may not agree with you, but we're going to have a discussion about this." And it did.
अतीत में सॉलिसिटर जनरलों द्वारा इस तरह के फैसलों के बारे में राष्ट्रपतियों से सलाह ली जाती थी, और मुझे लगा कि ऐसा करना ही सही था।
In the past, presidents had been consulted about those kinds of decisions by SGs, and I thought it was the right thing to do.
In the past, presidents had been consulted about those kinds of decisions by SGs, and I thought it was the right thing to do.
मुझे लगता है कि लॉरेंस मामले ने समलैंगिक जोड़ों को इस बात का भरोसा दिलाया कि वे समाज में एक स्वतंत्र इंसान के तौर पर खुलकर जी सकते हैं, परिवार बसा सकते हैं, उनका पालन-पोषण कर सकते हैं और बिना किसी डर के अपने समुदाय की गतिविधियों में पूरी तरह हिस्सा ले सकते हैं। इसके दो परिणाम सामने आए, ऐसा मुझे लगता है। एक तो यह कि आज हम उस स्थिति में पहुँच चुके हैं जहाँ हम इस बात को उस गहराई से समझ पा रहे हैं जिसे शायद हम लॉरेंस मामले के समय पूरी तरह नहीं समझ पाए थे, कि समलैंगिक लोग और जोड़े इस समाज के पूर्ण और बराबर के हिस्से हैं।
I think what Lawrence did was provide an assurance that gay and lesbian couples could live openly in society as free people and start families and raise families and participate fully in their communities without fear. And two things flowed from that, I think. One is that has brought us to the point where we understand now in a way even that we did not fully understand in Lawrence, that gay and lesbian people and gay and lesbian couples are full and equal members of the community.
I think what Lawrence did was provide an assurance that gay and lesbian couples could live openly in society as free people and start families and raise families and participate fully in their communities without fear. And two things flowed from that, I think. One is that has brought us to the point where we understand now in a way even that we did not fully understand in Lawrence, that gay and lesbian people and gay and lesbian couples are full and equal members of the community.
जब हम किसी सुनवाई की तैयारी करते हैं, तो हमारे दफ्तर में मूट कोर्ट (काल्पनिक अदालत) की प्रक्रिया होती है - सॉलिसिटर जनरल समेत हर कोई, हर मामले के लिए दो मूट कोर्ट करता है। वे वाकई शानदार होते हैं और मुझसे पूछे जाने वाले 90 प्रतिशत सवालों का, कम से कम 90 प्रतिशत का, पहले ही सही अंदाजा लगा लेते हैं।
The moot court process in our office when we get ready, we - everybody, including the SG, does two moot courts for each argument. And they are phenomenal, and they predict 90 percent of the questions that I get asked, at least 90 percent.
The moot court process in our office when we get ready, we - everybody, including the SG, does two moot courts for each argument. And they are phenomenal, and they predict 90 percent of the questions that I get asked, at least 90 percent.
चूँकि न्यायमूर्तियों खुद अपने आप में बेहद प्रतिभाशाली वकील होते हैं, इसलिए कभी-कभी वे सवाल को इस तरह से रखते हैं कि भले ही आपने उस विषय पर पूरी तैयारी क्यों न की हो, लेकिन सवाल इतने उलझन भरे और कठिन तरीके से पूछा जाता है कि उससे ढंग से पार पाना बहुत मुश्किल हो जाता है।
Sometimes one of the justices, because they're, you know, they're brilliant lawyers themselves, can put the question in a particular way so that, even if you've prepared to talk about the topic, the question is put in such an excruciatingly difficult way that there's just no good way to handle it.
Sometimes one of the justices, because they're, you know, they're brilliant lawyers themselves, can put the question in a particular way so that, even if you've prepared to talk about the topic, the question is put in such an excruciatingly difficult way that there's just no good way to handle it.
बात यह थी कि - उस मामले का मुख्य बिंदु यह भी था कि यह कानून देश के कुछ हिस्सों को दूसरों से अलग मानता है, और इसके पीछे क्या औचित्य है? खैर, आप जानते ही हैं, मेरे पास इस बारे में कहने के लिए आठ लाख बातें थीं, लेकिन उन्होंने सवाल को इतने तीखे और पेचیدہ तरीके से रखा कि उसका असरदार ढंग से जवाब देना बेहद कठिन हो गया था।
There was this point about, you know, the basic point there as well - this statute treats some parts of the country different from others, and what's the justification for that? Well, you know, I had eight million things to say about that, but he put it in such a sharp, excruciating way that it was just very hard to handle it effectively.
There was this point about, you know, the basic point there as well - this statute treats some parts of the country different from others, and what's the justification for that? Well, you know, I had eight million things to say about that, but he put it in such a sharp, excruciating way that it was just very hard to handle it effectively.
मुझे लगता है कि हुआ यह कि सबकी राय शुरुआत के उन कुछ ही मिनटों में बन गई थी। और मुझे ऐसा लगा कि सुनवाई के आखिरी हिस्से तक पहुँचते-पहुंचते मैंने किसी तरह बहस में अपनी जगह वापस बना ली थी। लेकिन लोगों की धारणाएं तो शुरुआत में ही तय हो चुकी थीं। मेरे अच्छे या बुरे होने से बिल्कुल अलग, वहाँ बहुत सारे तीखे और आक्रामक सवाल पूछे गए थे।
I think what happened is that everybody's impressions got formed in those first few minutes. And I felt like, by the latter part of it, I kind of clawed my way back into the discussion. But everybody's impressions were set at the beginning. And wholly apart from me and whether I was good or bad, you know, there were a lot of hostile questions.
I think what happened is that everybody's impressions got formed in those first few minutes. And I felt like, by the latter part of it, I kind of clawed my way back into the discussion. But everybody's impressions were set at the beginning. And wholly apart from me and whether I was good or bad, you know, there were a lot of hostile questions.
जब पत्रकार किसी मामले की कवरेज करते हैं, तो उन्हें अपनी समझ के हिसाब से सबसे सही आकलन करना होता है। लेकिन मुझे लगता है कि इससे मिलने वाला सबक यह है - और यह बात अपने आप में स्पष्ट भी है - कि मौखिक बहस अक्सर यह झूठा संकेत भी दे सकती है कि मामला किस दिशा में जा रहा है, बिल्कुल वैसे ही जैसे वह सही संकेत दे सकती है।
People have got to make their best calls in what they think about a case when they're covering it. But I do think the lesson there, and I guess stating the obvious, that oral argument can as often send a false signal as an accurate signal about where the thing is going.
People have got to make their best calls in what they think about a case when they're covering it. But I do think the lesson there, and I guess stating the obvious, that oral argument can as often send a false signal as an accurate signal about where the thing is going.
मैं मानता हूँ कि आज के समय में किसी भी बात पर तुरंत प्रतिक्रिया देने का जो चलन है, उसका अपना एक प्रभाव जरूर होता है; घटनाओं पर लोगों की तत्काल प्रतिक्रियाएं सही और मूल्यवान होती हैं। लेकिन वे हमेशा सही नहीं होतीं, और न ही वे हमेशा पूरी सच्चाई को बयां करती हैं।
I do think that the instant nature of the reaction now, I do think it has an effect, that people's instant reactions to things are valid and valuable. But they're not always right, and they're not always capturing the full reality.
I do think that the instant nature of the reaction now, I do think it has an effect, that people's instant reactions to things are valid and valuable. But they're not always right, and they're not always capturing the full reality.
जनता जिस हिस्से को देखती है वह है पोडियम पर होने वाली बहसें और वे दस्तावेज जो हम अदालत में दाखिल करते हैं। लेकिन इस काम का एक बहुत बड़ा हिस्सा - बल्कि यों कहूँ कि मैं अपने समय का ज्यादातर हिस्सा इसी काम में लगाता हूँ - वह यह तय करना है कि अदालत में विचाराधीन मामलों में संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका का रुख क्या होगा।
The part that the public sees is the arguments up at the podium and the briefs that we file. But a significant part of the job - in fact, I'd say I spend more of my time on this part of the job, which is deciding what the position of the United States will be in the cases that we're going to be participating in before the court.
The part that the public sees is the arguments up at the podium and the briefs that we file. But a significant part of the job - in fact, I'd say I spend more of my time on this part of the job, which is deciding what the position of the United States will be in the cases that we're going to be participating in before the court.
यह 2012 की बहार का समय था, जब ओबामा प्रशासन ने इस तर्क को अपना लिया था कि 'अफोर्डेबल केयर एक्ट' एक प्रकार का कर (टैक्स) है, और आगे चलकर यह खुद उनके लिए एक राजनीतिक मुसीबत बनने वाला था।
It's the spring of 2012, that the [Barak] Obama administration would be embracing the argument that the Affordable Care Act was a tax, and that was going to, itself, be a political albatross.
It's the spring of 2012, that the [Barak] Obama administration would be embracing the argument that the Affordable Care Act was a tax, and that was going to, itself, be a political albatross.
यह इस स्थिति का एक अनिवार्य परिणाम है कि जब आपके पास इतने बड़े असर वाली कोई नीति हो जो सीधे तौर पर लाखों लोगों को प्रभावित करती हो, और आपके पास राष्ट्रपति के आव्रजन कानूनों को लागू करने के अधिकारों के दायरे को लेकर भारी महत्व का कोई कानूनी सवाल हो, और अंत में अदालत का एक ही लाइन का यह फैसला आता है कि बराबरी में बंटी हुई अदालत ने पिछले फैसले को बरकरार रखा है।
The fact that you have a policy of such consequence directly affecting millions of people and you have a legal question of great consequence about the scope of the president's authority to act in implementing the immigration laws in this way and you have a one-line decision from the court affirming by an equally-divided court, it's an inevitable consequence of where we are.
The fact that you have a policy of such consequence directly affecting millions of people and you have a legal question of great consequence about the scope of the president's authority to act in implementing the immigration laws in this way and you have a one-line decision from the court affirming by an equally-divided court, it's an inevitable consequence of where we are.
मैं संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका का प्रतिनिधित्व कर रहा हूँ। और मैं दिन-प्रतिदिन अदालत के सामने संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका का प्रतिनिधित्व करता हूँ, मेरा कार्यालय संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका का प्रतिनिधित्व करता है। और मुझे लगता है कि इस जिम्मेदारी को पूरी गरिमा, प्रक्रिया के प्रति सम्मान और संस्था के प्रति आदर के साथ निभाना ही सही रास्ता है। इसलिए इसने मुझे केवल और केवल थोड़ा शांत और संयमित रहने की दिशा में आगे बढ़ाया।
I'm representing the United States. And I'm representing the United States, and my office is representing the United States day after day in front of the court. And I think it's the right thing to do, to carry that out with some dignity and some respect for the process and respect for the institution. And so that led me to just, you know, move the dial a little bit in the direction of calmness.
I'm representing the United States. And I'm representing the United States, and my office is representing the United States day after day in front of the court. And I think it's the right thing to do, to carry that out with some dignity and some respect for the process and respect for the institution. And so that led me to just, you know, move the dial a little bit in the direction of calmness.
मैं एक ऐसे न्यायलय के सामने एक प्रगतिशील प्रशासन की ओर से प्रगतिशील विचारों की पैरवी कर रहा था, जहाँ न्यायमूर्ति एंटोनिन स्केलिया के निधन से पहले, रूढ़िवादियों का बहुमत था और सच कहूँ तो वे काफी हद तक रूढ़िवादी थे।
I'm arguing for progressive positions on behalf of a progressive administration in front of a court who, before Justice [Antonin] Scalia's death, had a conservative majority that was quite conservative, frankly.
I'm arguing for progressive positions on behalf of a progressive administration in front of a court who, before Justice [Antonin] Scalia's death, had a conservative majority that was quite conservative, frankly.
कुछ वर्षों के बाद, मुझे अहसास हुआ कि यह बात बिल्कुल सच थी, कि उनके इस तरीके ने मुझे एक अलग स्तर पर जाने और उम्मीद है कि और भी अधिक प्रभाव छोड़ने की क्षमता दी।
After a couple of years, I realized that this was actually true, that his gave me the ability to go to a different place and, hopefully, have a stronger impact.
After a couple of years, I realized that this was actually true, that his gave me the ability to go to a different place and, hopefully, have a stronger impact.
न्यायमूर्ति सोतोमायोर ने कहा, "चलिए बात करते हैं - आप कर लगाने की शक्ति के बारे में बात करना चाहते हैं।" और मुझे कर (टैक्स) की शक्ति पर लगभग 10 मिनट तक लगातार बोलने का मौका मिला। और सचमुच, मुझे बहुत खुशी हुई कि मैंने ऐसा किया क्योंकि मैं इस बात को अच्छी तरह समझा पाया कि हाँ, यह एक ऐसा सीमित आधार है जिसके तहत आप इस फैसले को सही ठहरा सकते हैं। और मुझे लगता है कि हर कोई इस बात से सहमत है। मुझे लगता है कि मामले में असहमति जताने वाले न्यायमूर्तिगण भी अंततः इस बात पर रामते कि अगर कांग्रेस ने इसे स्पष्ट रूप से कर कहा होता, तो इस पर कोई विवाद नहीं होता कि यह पूरी तरह से संविधान के दायरे में है।
Justice [Sonia]Sotomayor said, "Let's talk - you want to talk about the tax power."And I got like a 10-minute run on the tax power. And, boy, was I glad I did because I was able to get across this idea that, yes, this is a narrower ground on which you can affirm it. And I think everybody agrees. I think even the dissenting justices ultimately in the case agreed that, if Congress had expressly called it a tax, it would be indisputably constitutional.
Justice [Sonia]Sotomayor said, "Let's talk - you want to talk about the tax power."And I got like a 10-minute run on the tax power. And, boy, was I glad I did because I was able to get across this idea that, yes, this is a narrower ground on which you can affirm it. And I think everybody agrees. I think even the dissenting justices ultimately in the case agreed that, if Congress had expressly called it a tax, it would be indisputably constitutional.
ब्रेट कैवाना एक बेहद प्रतिभाशाली न्यायाधीश हैं और देश के सबसे प्रतिष्ठित रूढ़िवादी न्यायविदों में से एक हैं।
Brett Kavanaugh is a brilliant, brilliant judge and one of the most-distinguished conservative jurists in the country.
Brett Kavanaugh is a brilliant, brilliant judge and one of the most-distinguished conservative jurists in the country.
राष्ट्रपति ओबामा से एक समाचार कार्यक्रम के दौरान जॉर्ज स्टीफनोपूलस ने कुछ सवाल पूछे थे कि क्या यह एक कर (टैक्स) है। और उन्होंने ऐसा जवाब दिया था जिसे पढ़कर कोई भी यही समझेगा कि वह इसे कर नहीं मान रहे हैं। मुझे लगता है कि उन्होंने जो कहा था वह यह था, "यह सभी अमेरिकियों पर कर में बढ़ोतरी नहीं है।"
The president [Barak Obama] had been asked some questions by George Stephanopoulos on a news show about whether it was a tax. And he had given an answer that you might read as him saying it wasn't a tax. I think what he said was, "It isn't a tax increase on all Americans."
The president [Barak Obama] had been asked some questions by George Stephanopoulos on a news show about whether it was a tax. And he had given an answer that you might read as him saying it wasn't a tax. I think what he said was, "It isn't a tax increase on all Americans."
जब हम किसी मुकदमे में पक्षकार नहीं होते, तो कभी-कभी हम 'एमिकस' यानी अदालत के मित्र के रूप में अपनी बात रखते हैं - साल भर में 25, 30 बार, या कभी-कभी उससे भी ज्यादा। और ऐसे हर मामले में, हमें यह तय करना होता है कि सरकार का रुख क्या होगा। और यह फैसला करना सॉलिसिटर जनरल का काम है।
When we're not a party, we sometimes file as amicus, as friend of the court, 25, 30 times a term, sometimes more. And in each of those cases, we've got to decide what position the government's going to take. And that is the solicitor general's job to make that decision.
When we're not a party, we sometimes file as amicus, as friend of the court, 25, 30 times a term, sometimes more. And in each of those cases, we've got to decide what position the government's going to take. And that is the solicitor general's job to make that decision.
ये ऐसे मामले हैं जिनमें यह सवाल शामिल है कि क्या विदेशी नागरिकों द्वारा विदेशी सरकार के अधिकारियों के खिलाफ मानवाधिकारों के हंन का आरोप लगाते हुए जो दावे लाए जाते हैं, उनके लिए अमेरिकी अदालतें खुली रहनी चाहिए या नहीं। एक तरफ स्टेट डिपार्टमेंट का यह बहुत ही स्पष्ट और मजबूत मानना है कि अमेरिकी अदालतें ऐसे मामलों के लिए खुली रहनी चाहिए क्योंकि दुनिया में कोई ऐसी जगह होनी चाहिए जहाँ इन्हें उठाया जा सके। और मानवाधिकारों के वे नियम वास्तविक और लागू करने योग्य होने चाहिए, और हमें दुनिया के लिए एक मिसाल या मार्गदर्शक बनना चाहिए।
The cases involving the question of whether U.S. courts should be open to claims of international human rights violations brought by foreign persons against foreign government officials. And the State Department on the one side has got a very consistent and powerful view that U.S. courts should be open to those claims because there needs to be a place in the world where they can be brought. And those human rights norms ought to be real and enforceable, and we ought to be a beacon to the world.
The cases involving the question of whether U.S. courts should be open to claims of international human rights violations brought by foreign persons against foreign government officials. And the State Department on the one side has got a very consistent and powerful view that U.S. courts should be open to those claims because there needs to be a place in the world where they can be brought. And those human rights norms ought to be real and enforceable, and we ought to be a beacon to the world.
अपने पांच साल के पूरे कार्यकाल के दौरान मुझे राष्ट्रपति और व्हाइट हाउस से काफी हद तक आजादी मिली हुई थी। और मुझे ठीक-ठीक नहीं पता कि ऐसा क्यों था, लेकिन हमारे मित्र वाल्टर डेलिंगर के पास इसके बारे में एक सिद्धांत है, और मुझे लगता है कि वह शायद सही भी हैं। इस बात की शुरुआत यहीं से होती है कि एसजी का पद संभालने से पहले मैंने डेढ़ साल तक व्हाइट हाउस में काम किया था। और इसी वजह से, जब मेरा नाम नामित किया गया था, तो कुछ ऐसी चर्चाएं उड़ी थीं कि, "अरे, वे किसी राजनीतिक चापलूस को इस पद पर बिठा रहे हैं। ऐसा तो कभी पहले नहीं हुआ।"
I had a great deal of independence from the president and the White House during the entirety of my five years. And I'm not sure exactly what that is, but our friend, Walter Dellinger, has a theory about it, and I think he's probably right. And the theory starts with the fact that I worked in the White House for a year and a half before coming over to the position of SG. And because of that, when I was nominated, there was some chatter out there that, "Oh. They're putting a political hack in. This has never happened before."
I had a great deal of independence from the president and the White House during the entirety of my five years. And I'm not sure exactly what that is, but our friend, Walter Dellinger, has a theory about it, and I think he's probably right. And the theory starts with the fact that I worked in the White House for a year and a half before coming over to the position of SG. And because of that, when I was nominated, there was some chatter out there that, "Oh. They're putting a political hack in. This has never happened before."