Supreme Court Asks for More Money for Security
Supreme Court Asks for More Money for Security
最高法院要求增加安保經費
Introduction
Two judges, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan, will talk to Congress. They want more money for the Supreme Court budget.
兩位法官 Amy Coney Barrett 和 Elena Kagan 將與國會對談，他們希望增加最高法院的預算經費。
Main Body
The judges need more money because there are more dangers now. Bad things happened 57 percent more often in 2025. People are very angry about politics, so the judges are not safe.
法官需要更多經費，因為現在危險增加。2025 年發生不良事件的次數增加了 57%。人們對政治非常憤怒，因此法官處於不安全狀態。
The Court wants 207 million dollars. They want to hire 84 more security guards. These guards will protect the judges and their families at home.
法院希望能獲得 2.07 億美元。他們想增聘 84 名安保人員。這些安保人員將在家中保護法官及其家人。
They also want money for computers and internet security. They need more workers to keep the Court safe. This is a big change from before.
他們還希望獲得電腦與網路安全的經費。他們需要更多員工來維持法院的安全。這與以往相比是一個巨大的改變。
Conclusion
The Supreme Court wants more money and more workers to stay safe from danger.
最高法院希望獲得更多經費與員工，以確保免於危險。
Vocabulary Learning
⚡ The 'Want' Pattern
In this text, we see a very useful way to say what you need. Look at these sentences:
- "They want more money."
- "They want to hire 84 more security guards."
How to use it:
- Want + Thing I want water.
- Want + To + Action I want to sleep.
🧱 Building 'More'
To reach A2, you must describe changes. Use More + Noun to show an increase:
Example: "I have more work today than yesterday."
Vocabulary Learning
Supreme Court Requests More Funding for Security Due to Rising Threats
威脅增加，最高法院請求更多安保經費
Introduction
Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan are set to testify before House and Senate committees regarding the Supreme Court's budget request for the 2027 fiscal year.
Amy Coney Barrett 與 Elena Kagan 兩位大法官將在眾議院與參議院委員會前，就最高法院 2027 財政年度的預算請求作證。
Main Body
The judiciary is requesting more funding because security risks have clearly increased. According to data from the U.S. Marshals Service, serious security incidents rose by 57 percent in 2025, and this trend is expected to continue. Some experts, including Professor Charles Gardner Geyh, emphasize that this is caused by a highly divided political climate and public comments from leaders that target judges. Consequently, the Supreme Court is asking for a total budget of $207 million for 2027, which is a 7.2 percent increase over the previous year.
司法部門請求更多經費，是因為安保風險顯著增加。根據美國法警局的數據，2025 年嚴重安保事件上升了 57%，且預計此趨勢將持續。包括 Charles Gardner Geyh 教授在內的專家強調，這是由高度對立的政治氣候以及領導者針對法官的公開言論所引起。因此，最高法院請求 2027 年的總預算為 2.07 億美元，較前一年增加 7.2%。
Specifically, the court wants an extra $14.6 million and 84 new full-time staff members to improve protection for the justices, their homes, and their families. Furthermore, they are requesting $2 million for a remote security command center and $2.3 million for 12 cybersecurity experts to reduce digital risks. The judiciary asserts that the security situation has changed permanently following the Dobbs decision; therefore, they need to increase their total staff from 784 to 880 employees.
具體而言，法院希望獲得額外的 1,460 萬美元以及 84 名全職新員工，以強化對大法官及其住宅與家人的保護。此外，他們請求 200 萬美元用於建立遠端安保指揮中心，以及 230 萬美元聘請 12 名網絡安全專家以降低數位風險。司法部門主張，在 Dobbs 裁決之後，安保狀況已發生永久性改變；因此，他們需要將總員工數從 784 人增加到 880 人。
Because this is the first time justices have testified since 2019, the choice of Justices Barrett and Kagan is seen as a strategic move to show a non-partisan image. While the main goal is to get security funds, other observers, such as Gabe Roth from Fix the Court, suggest that this is also a chance for Congress to provide oversight. As a result, lawmakers may ask questions about judicial ethics, how contracts are handled, and the transparency of the court's internal operations.
由於這是大法官自 2019 年以來首次作證，選擇 Barrett 與 Kagan 兩位大法官被視為一種戰略舉措，旨在展現非黨派的形象。雖然主要目標是獲取安保經費，但其他觀察人士（如來自 Fix the Court 的 Gabe Roth）認為，這也是國會進行監督的機會。因此，立法者可能會就司法倫理、合約處理以及法院內部運作的透明度提出質詢。
Conclusion
The Supreme Court is seeking a significant increase in funding to deal with higher security threats by hiring more staff and improving their technology.
最高法院正透過聘請更多員工與改良技術，尋求大幅增加經費，以應對更高的安保威脅。
Vocabulary Learning
⚡ The 'Logic Glue' (Connectors for B2)
At an A2 level, you probably use and, but, and because for everything. To reach B2, you need to stop using 'baby' connectors and start using Cause-and-Effect Logic.
Look at how the article connects ideas to sound professional and authoritative:
🛠️ The Upgrade Path
Instead of saying "So" or "And then", the text uses these high-level transitions:
-
Consequently (Used when one thing happens as a direct result of another).
- A2 style: The climate is divided, so the Court wants more money.
- B2 style: The political climate is divided; consequently, the Court is asking for a total budget of $207 million.
-
Furthermore (Used to add a new, important point to an argument).
- A2 style: They want staff and they want a command center.
- B2 style: They want 84 new staff members. Furthermore, they are requesting $2 million for a remote security center.
-
Therefore (Used to introduce a logical conclusion).
- A2 style: Things changed, so they need more people.
- B2 style: The security situation has changed permanently; therefore, they need to increase their total staff.
🎯 Pro Tip: The Punctuation Secret
Notice that these B2 words often follow a semicolon (;) or start a new sentence. This creates a "pause" that makes your speaking and writing feel more deliberate and academic.
Quick Reference Table:
| Avoid (A2) | Try (B2) | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| So | Consequently / Therefore | Showing Result |
| Also / And | Furthermore / Moreover | Adding Information |
| But | However / While | Showing Contrast |
Vocabulary Learning
Judiciary Requests Enhanced Security Appropriations Amid Escalating Threat Environment
面臨威脅環境日益嚴重，司法部門請求增加安保撥款
Introduction
Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan are scheduled to testify before House and Senate appropriations panels regarding the Supreme Court's fiscal year 2027 budget request.
大法官 Amy Coney Barrett 與 Elena Kagan 預計將在眾議院與參議院的撥款委員會面前作證，討論最高法院 2027 財政年度的預算請求。
Main Body
The judiciary's request for increased funding is predicated on a documented escalation of security risks. Data from the U.S. Marshals Service indicates that incidents categorized as 'of significant concern' increased by 57 percent in fiscal year 2025, with a projected continued upward trajectory for fiscal year 2026. This trend is attributed by some observers, such as Professor Charles Gardner Geyh, to a hyper-polarized political climate and rhetoric from executive leadership that targets jurists. Consequently, the Supreme Court is seeking a total discretionary budget of $207 million for FY2027, representing a 7.2 percent increase over FY2026 levels.
司法部門請求增加資金，是基於有紀錄顯示安保風險確實升級。根據美國法警局的數據，2025 財政年度被歸類為「嚴重關注」的事件增加了 57%，預計 2026 財政年度將持續上升。部分觀察者（如 Charles Gardner Geyh 教授）將此趨勢歸因於極端對立的政治氣候，以及行政領導層針對法官的言論。因此，最高法院正尋求 2027 財政年度總計 2.07 億美元的酌情預算，較 2026 財政年度增加 7.2%。
Specific budgetary allocations include a $14.6 million increase and 84 additional full-time positions to augment the protection of justices, their residences, and their families. Further requests include $2 million for an off-site residential security command post and $2.3 million for 12 cybersecurity personnel to mitigate digital vulnerabilities. The judiciary asserts that the security landscape has been permanently altered following the Dobbs decision, necessitating an increase in total staffing from 784 to 880 full-time equivalent employees.
具體預算分配包括增加 1,460 萬美元及 84 個全職職位，以強化對大法官及其住宅與家人的保護。其他請求包括 200 萬美元用於離場住宅安保指揮站，以及 230 萬美元用於聘請 12 名網絡安全人員以降低數位漏洞風險。司法部門主張，在 Dobbs 裁決後，安保環境已發生永久性改變，使得全職等量員工需求從 784 人增加至 880 人。
The selection of Justices Barrett and Kagan for this rare appearance—the first such testimony since 2019—is interpreted as a strategic effort to present a non-partisan, institutional front. While the primary objective is the procurement of security funds, external stakeholders, including Gabe Roth of Fix the Court, suggest that this appearance provides an opportunity for legislative oversight. Potential lines of inquiry may extend beyond security to encompass judicial ethics, contracting practices, the utilization of the 'shadow docket,' and the transparency of internal operations.
選擇 Barrett 與 Kagan 兩位大法官出席這次罕見的作證（自 2019 年以來首次），被解讀為一種策略性嘗試，旨在呈現非黨派的機構統一陣線。雖然主要目標是獲取安保資金，但包括 Fix the Court 的 Gabe Roth 在內的外部利益相關者認為，這次露面提供了立法監督的機會。潛在的詢問方向可能會超出安保範圍，涵蓋司法倫理、承包實務、「影子卷宗」的運用以及內部運作的透明度。
Conclusion
The Supreme Court seeks significant funding increases to address a heightened threat environment through expanded personnel and technological infrastructure.
最高法院正尋求大幅增加資金，透過擴充人員與技術基礎設施，以應對日益嚴重的威脅環境。
Vocabulary Learning
The Architecture of Institutional Neutrality
To transition from B2 to C2, a student must move beyond meaning and begin analyzing register and strategic distance. In this text, the most sophisticated linguistic phenomenon is the use of Nominalization as a Tool for De-personalization.
⚡ The 'C2 Pivot': From Action to Concept
B2 learners describe events; C2 practitioners describe phenomena. Note how the text avoids simple subject-verb-object patterns to create a 'clinical' distance:
- B2 approach: "The security risks are increasing, so the judiciary is asking for more money."
- C2 approach: "The judiciary's request... is predicated on a documented escalation of security risks."
By transforming the verb escalate into the noun escalation and the verb predicate into a passive construction, the author removes the 'actor' and focuses on the 'condition.' This creates an aura of objective, institutional authority.
🔍 Lexical Precision & Collocational Weight
Observe the high-density clusters of formal collocations that signal a C2 level of mastery. These are not just "big words," but precise legal-administrative pairings:
Critical Analysis: The phrase "mitigate digital vulnerabilities" is a masterclass in professional register. A B2 student might say "fix computer problems," but "mitigate" implies a calculated reduction of risk rather than a total cure—a distinction essential for high-level diplomatic or legal discourse.
🛠️ Advanced Syntactic Maneuver: The Appositive Insert
Look at the structure: "...some observers, such as Professor Charles Gardner Geyh, to a hyper-polarized political climate..."
This use of an embedded appositive allows the writer to provide evidence without breaking the narrative flow of the sentence. It is the hallmark of academic fluidity: the ability to insert complex qualifiers without collapsing the grammatical structure of the primary clause.