The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court（）

In a rare unanimous ruling,the US Supreme Court has overturned the corruption conviction of a former Virginia governor,Robert McDonnell.But it did so while holding its nose at the ethics of his conduct,which included accepting gifts such as a Rolex watch and a Ferrari Automobile from a company seeking access to government.The high court’s decision said the judge in Mr.McDonnell’s trail failed to tell a jury that it must look only at his“official acts,”or the former governor’s decisions on“specific”and“unsettled”issues related to his duties.Merely helping a gift-giver gain access to other officials,unless done with clear intent to pressure those officials,is not corruption,the justices found.The court did suggest that accepting favors in return for opening doors is“distasteful”and“nasty.”But under anti-bribery laws,proof must be made of concrete benefits,such as approval of a contract or regulation.Simply arranging a meeting,making a phone call,or hosting an event is not an“official act.”The court’s ruling is legally sound in defining a kind of favoritism that is not criminal.Elected leaders must be allowed to help supporters deal with bureaucratic problems without fear of prosecution of bribery.“The basic compact underlying representative government,”wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the court,“assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act on their concerns.”But the ruling reinforces the need for citizens and their elected representatives,not the courts,to ensure equality of access to government.Officials must not be allowed to play favorites in providing information or in arranging meetings simply because an individual or group provides a campaign donation or a personal gift.This type of integrity requires will-enforced laws in government transparency,such as records of official meetings,rules on lobbying,and information about each elected leader’s source of wealth.Favoritism in official access can fan public perceptions of corruption.But it is not always corruption.Rather officials must avoid double standards,or different types of access for average people and the wealthy.If connections can be bought,a basic premise of democratic society–that all are equal in treatment by government-is undermined.Good government rests on an understanding of the inherent worth of each individual.The court’s ruling is a step forward in the struggle against both corruption and official favoritism.
The underlined sentence（Para.1）most probably shows that the court____

A.avoided defining the extent of McDonnell’s duties.
B.made no compromise in convicting McDonnell.
C.was contemptuous of McDonnell’s conduct.
D.refused to comment on McDonnell’s ethics.

The ethical judgments of the Supreme Court justices have become an important issue recently.The court cannot_1_its legitimacy as guardian of the rule of law_2_justices behave like politicians.Yet,in several instances,justices acted in ways that_3_the court’s reputation for being independent and impartial.Justice Antonin Scalia,for example,appeared at political events.That kind of activity makes it less likely that the court’s decisions will be_4_as impartial judgments.Part of the problem is that the justices are not_5_by an ethics code.At the very least,the court should make itself_6_to the code of conduct that_7_to the rest of the federal judiciary.This and other similar cases_8_the question of whether there is still a_9_between the court and politics.The framers of the Constitution envisioned law_10_having authority apart from politics.They gave justices permanent positions_11_they would be free to_12_those in power and have no need to_13_political support.Our legal system was designed to set law apart from politics precisely because they are so closely_14_.Constitutional law is political because it results from choices rooted in fundamental social_15_like liberty and property.When the court deals with social policy decisions,the law it_16_is inescapably political-which is why decisions split along ideological lines are so easily_17_as unjust.The justices must_18_doubts about the court’s legitimacy by making themselves_19_to the code of conduct.That would make rulings more likely to be seen as separate from politics and,_20_,convincing as law.

A.dismissed
B.released
C.ranked
D.distorted

On a five to three vote,the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday-a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration.But on the more important matter of the Constitution,the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration’s effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.In Arizona v.United States,the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona’s controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law.The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to“establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization”and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial.Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.Justice Anthony Kennedy,joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberals,ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun.On the overturned provisions the majority held the congress had deliberately“occupied the field”and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers.However,the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement.That’s because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.Two of the three objecting Justice-Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas-agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute.The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia,who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the alien and Sedition Acts.The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as“a shocking assertion assertion of federal executive power”.The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities,even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter.In effect,the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with.Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government,and control of citizenship and the borders is among them.But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status,it could.It never did so.The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes,no state should be allowed to do so either.Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.
It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts

A.violated the Constitution.
B.undermined the states’interests.
C.supported the federal statute.
D.stood in favor of the states.

In a rare unanimous ruling,the US Supreme Court has overturned the corruption conviction of a former Virginia governor,Robert McDonnell.But it did so while holding its nose at the ethics of his conduct,which included accepting gifts such as a Rolex watch and a Ferrari Automobile from a company seeking access to government.The high court’s decision said the judge in Mr.McDonnell’s trail failed to tell a jury that it must look only at his“official acts,”or the former governor’s decisions on“specific”and“unsettled”issues related to his duties.Merely helping a gift-giver gain access to other officials,unless done with clear intent to pressure those officials,is not corruption,the justices found.The court did suggest that accepting favors in return for opening doors is“distasteful”and“nasty.”But under anti-bribery laws,proof must be made of concrete benefits,such as approval of a contract or regulation.Simply arranging a meeting,making a phone call,or hosting an event is not an“official act.”The court’s ruling is legally sound in defining a kind of favoritism that is not criminal.Elected leaders must be allowed to help supporters deal with bureaucratic problems without fear of prosecution of bribery.“The basic compact underlying representative government,”wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the court,“assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act on their concerns.”But the ruling reinforces the need for citizens and their elected representatives,not the courts,to ensure equality of access to government.Officials must not be allowed to play favorites in providing information or in arranging meetings simply because an individual or group provides a campaign donation or a personal gift.This type of integrity requires will-enforced laws in government transparency,such as records of official meetings,rules on lobbying,and information about each elected leader’s source of wealth.Favoritism in official access can fan public perceptions of corruption.But it is not always corruption.Rather officials must avoid double standards,or different types of access for average people and the wealthy.If connections can be bought,a basic premise of democratic society–that all are equal in treatment by government-is undermined.Good government rests on an understanding of the inherent worth of each individual.The court’s ruling is a step forward in the struggle against both corruption and official favoritism.
The author’s attitude toward the court’s ruling is____

A.sarcastic.
B.tolerant.
C.skeptical.
D.supportive.