The justices decide which cases they will hear, about 80 each year. They decide another 50 without hearing arguments. The cases they choose usually address constitutional issues or federal law.
Rule 4. Sessions and Quorum 1. Open sessions of the Court are held beginning at 10 a.m. on the first Monday in October of each year, and thereafter as announced by the Court. Unless it orders otherwise, the Court sits to hear arguments from 10 a.m. until noon and from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m. 2. Six Members of the Court constitute a quorum. See 28 U. S. C. § 1. In the absence of a quorum on any day appointed
for holding a session of the Court, the Justices attending—
or if no Justice is present, the Clerk or a Deputy Clerk—may announce that the Court will not meet until there is a quorum. 3. When appropriate, the Court will direct the Clerk or the Marshal to announce recesses.
- Senior Member
硬伤不少的"译文"。这套系统大体上能保证未成年人不能on their own获得过分暴力的游戏； 不能保证未成年人经由“假x师”获得过分暴力的游戏。
… The video-game industry has in place a voluntary rating system designed to inform consumers about the content of games. The system, implemented by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), assigns age-specific ratings to each video game submitted: EC (Early Childhood); E (Everyone); E10+ (Everyone 10 and older); T (Teens); M (17 and older); and AO (Adults Only—18 and older). … This system does much to ensure that minors cannot purchase seriously violent games on their own , and that parents who care about the matter can readily evaluate the games their children bring home. Filling the remaining modest gap in concerned-parents’ control can hardly be a compelling state interest.
- Senior Member
政府无权 和政府不能 的权限差的可是十万八千里！
…The most basic of those principles is this: “[A]s a general matter, … government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union , 535 U. S. 564, 573 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). There are of course exceptions. “ ‘From 1791 to the present,’ … the First Amendment has ‘permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas,’ and has never ‘include[d] a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations.’ ” United States v. Stevens , 559 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 5) (quoting R. A. V. v. St. Paul , 505 U. S. 377, 382–383 (1992) ). These limited areas—such as obscenity, Roth v. United States , 354 U. S. 476, 483 (1957) , incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio , 395 U. S. 444, 447–449 (1969) (per curiam) , and fighting words, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire , 315 U. S. 568 , 572 (1942)—represent “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem,” id. , at 571–572.
…最基本的原则为：＂一般而言，政府不能 因为言论的信息、思想、议题或内容而对其作出限制。＂当然，这一原则也有例外，＂从1791年至今，第一修正案允许在几个领域内对言论的内容作出限制，但不得在这些传统领域之外随意设限。＂（援引2010年《美国诉Stevens》一案）这些有限的领域——如龌龊言论，见Roth v. United States , 354 U. S. 476, 483 (1957)一案；教唆，见Brandenburg v. Ohio , 395 U. S. 444, 447–449 (1969)；挑衅性的辱骂，见Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire , 315 U. S. 568 , 572 (1942)——代表了明确的、极其有限的几类言论，对它们的惩处从来没有让人产生是否违宪的疑问。