¡¡¡¡2015öλÔÓéÀÖ¹Ù·½appÏÂÔس¾°£Â䶨£¬ÓÐÌ«¶à³É¹¦µÄϲÔá¢Âä°ñµÄÎÞÄλã¾ÛÔÚÕâ¸öÎåÔµÄÌì¿ÕÉÏ£¬¸÷λ2016öλÔÓéÀÖ¹Ù·½appÏÂÔØÈË£¬¶ÔÓÚöλÔÓéÀÖ¹Ù·½appÏÂÔØÓ¢ÓïµÄ±¸¿¼£¬ÄãÃǵĽø¶ÈÈçºÎÁËÄØ£¿ ÊÇֻͣÁôÔÚ´Ê»ã½×¶Î²¢Î´Éæ¼°ÕæÌ⣬»¹ÊÇÒѾ×ÅÊÖ¶ÔÕæÌâÖÐÄѽâµÄ³¤ÄѾä½øÐÐÖðÒ»·ÖÎöÁËÄØ£¿±¸¿¼ÒËÔç²»ÒËÍí£¬¿ì¿ì¿ª¶¯ÄԽÈö¼½ÌÊÚ´øÄãÀ´“¼ûʶ”Ò»ÏÂÕæÌâµÄ À÷º¦¡£
¡¡¡¡¡¾2011ÄêÕæÌâ¡¿
¡¡¡¡Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle viewed laughter as “a bodily exercise precious to health ”. But --despite some claims to the contrary , laughing probably has little influence on physical fitness. Laughter does produce short-term changes in the function of the heart and its blood vessels , boosting heart rate and oxygen consumption . But because hard laughter is diffcult to sustain , a good laugh is unlikely to have measurable .But because hard laughter is diffcult to sustain , a good laugh is unlikely to have measurable benefits the way , way , walking or jogging does ¡£
¡¡¡¡¡ñÉÁ¹â´Ê×é
¡¡¡¡²úÉú¶ÌÆڵı仯£ºproduce short-term changes
¡¡¡¡Ôö¼ÓÐÄÌøËٶȺÍÑõÆøÏûºÄ£ºboost heart rate and oxygen consumption
¡¡¡¡ÉíÌ彡¿µ£ºphysical fitness
¡¡¡¡ÓÐÃ÷ÏÔµÄЧ¹û£ºhave measurable benefits
¡¡¡¡Ïà·´µÄ¹Ûµã£ºsome claims to the contrary
¡¡¡¡¡ñÁ·Á·°É
¡¡¡¡Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle viewed laughter as “a bodily exercise precious to health ”.
¡¡¡¡¹ÅÏ£À°ÕÜѧ¼ÒÑÇÀïÊ¿¶àµÂ°ÑЦÊÓΪһÖÖ¶Ô½¡¿µÕä¹óµÄÉíÌåÔ˶¯¡£
¡¡¡¡¡¾2012ÄêÕæÌâ¡¿
¡¡¡¡Constitutional law is political because it results from choices rooted in fundamental social concepts like liberty and property . When the court deals with social policy decisions , the law it shapes is inescapably political-which is why decisions split along ideological lines are so easily dismissed as unjust. The justices must address doubts about the court’s legitimacy by making themselves accountable to the code of conduct.That would make rulings more likely to be seen as separate from politics and , as a result, convincing as law¡£
¡¡¡¡¡ñÉÁ¹â´Ê×é
¡¡¡¡¸ùÔ´ÓÚ»ù±¾µÄÉç»á¸ÅÄroot in fundamental social concepts
¡¡¡¡¸ù¾ÝÒâʶ·Ïß×ö¾ö¶¨£ºsplit decisions along ideological lines
¡¡¡¡ÒòΪ²»¹«Æ½¶ø±»¾Ü¾ø£ºbe dismissed as unjust
¡¡¡¡½â¾ö»³ÒÉ£ºaddress doubts
¡¡¡¡ÊÇ×Ô¼º×ñÊØÐÐΪ¹æÔò£ºmake oneself accountable to the code of conduct
¡¡¡¡¡ñÁ·Á·°É
¡¡¡¡When the court deals with social policy decisions , the law (it shapes ) is inescapably political - which is why decisions (split along ideological lines )are so easily dismissed as unjust¡£
¡¡¡¡½á¹¹Ìáʾ£º(it shapes)ÊÇÊ¡ÂÔÁËthatµÄ¶¨Óï´Ó¾ä£¬ÐÞÊÎÇ°ÃæµÄlaw£¬(split along……)ÊǹýÈ¥·Ö´Ê¶ÌÓï³äµ±ºóÖö¨ÓïÐÞÊÎÇ°ÃæµÄdecisions¡£
¡¡¡¡µ±·¨Ôº´¦ÀíÉç»á¾ö²ßµÄʱºò£¬ËüËùÐγɵķ¨Âɲ»¿É±ÜÃâµØ¾ßÓÐÕþÖÎÐÔ——Õâ¾ÍÊÇΪʲô¸ù¾Ý²»Í¬Ë¼ÏëÒâʶ·Ïß×ö³öµÄ¾ö²ßÈç´ËÈÝÒ×ÒòΪ²»¹«Æ½¶ø±»¾Ü¾ø¡£
¡¡¡¡¡¾2012ÄêÕæÌâ¡¿
¡¡¡¡At the very least , the court should make itself subject to the code of conduct that applies to the rest of the federal judiciary. This and other similar cases raise to the rest of federal judiciary. This and other similar cases raise the question of whether there is still a line between the court and politics . The framers of the Constitution envisioned law as having authority apart from politics. They gave justices permanent positions so they would be free to upset those in power and have no need to cultivate political support . Our legal system was designed to set law apart from politics precisely because they are so closely tied ¡£
¡¡¡¡¡ñÓ¦Óõ½ÆäËûÁª°î˾·¨²¿ÃÅ£ºapply to the rest of the federal judiciary
¡¡¡¡Ìá³öÎÊÌ⣺raise the question
¡¡¡¡´ò½Áµ±È¨Õߣºupset those in power
¡¡¡¡Èç´Ë½ôÃÜÁªÏµ£ºbe so closely tied
¡¡¡¡ÊÇ×Ô¼º×ñÊØÐÐΪ¹æÔò£ºmake oneself subject to the code of conduct
¡¡¡¡At the very least , the court should make itself subject to the code of conduct (that applies to the rest of the federal judiciary )
¡¡¡¡½á¹¹Ìáʾ£º(that applies to.¡£¡£)×÷Ϊ¶¨Óï´Ó¾äÐÞÊÎÇ°ÃæµÄthe code of conduct
¡¡¡¡ÎåÔµĽ¾ÑôÒѾ×ã¹»ÖËÈÈ£¬µãȼ¸÷λ2016öλÔÓéÀÖ¹Ù·½appÏÂÔØÈËÄÚÐĵĻðÖÖ£¬Ï£Íûͨ¹ý¶¼½ÌÊÚ½ñÌìµÄ½²½âÄÜ°ïÖú¸÷λ¿¼Éúº»ÊµöλÔÓéÀÖ¹Ù·½appÏÂÔØÓ¢Óï´Ê»ãÓï·¨µÄ»ù´¡£¬»ýÀÛ¸ü¶àµÄÉÁ¹â´Ê×顣Ԥף¸÷λ¿¼Éú½ð°ñÌâÃû£¬È¡µÃÀíÏë¼Ñ¼¨£¡
¡¡¡¡±¾ÎÄÓÉÎĶ¼½ÌÓý¹©¸å¡£
