《2022年考博英语-复旦大学考试题库及全真模拟冲刺卷（含答案带详解）套卷95》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《2022年考博英语-复旦大学考试题库及全真模拟冲刺卷（含答案带详解）套卷95（18页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、2022年考博英语-复旦大学考试题库及全真模拟冲刺卷（含答案带详解）1. 单选题We are surprised to find that he has a(n) （ ）streak, with the tendency of remembering the wrongs done to him.问题1选项A.vengefulB.invincibleC.vulnerableD.violent【答案】A【解析】考查形容词词义辨析。vengeful“复仇的，报复的”；invincible“无敌的，不能征服的”；vulnerable“易受攻击的”；violent“暴力的，猛烈的”。句意：我们惊讶地发
2、现他有报复心理，他记着那些做了对不起他的事的人。选项A符合题意。2. 单选题On January, 11th, 2009, a remarkable legal case opens in a San Francisco courtroom on its way, it seems almost certain, to the Supreme Court. Perry v. Schwarzenegger challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California referendum that, in November,
3、2008, overturned a State Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex couples to marry. Its lead lawyers are unlikely allies: Theodore B. Olson, the former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, and a prominent conservative; and David Boies, the Democratic trial lawyer who was his opposing co
4、unsel in Bush v. Gore. The two are mounting an ambitious case that pointedly circumvents the incremental, narrowly crafted legal gambits and the careful state-by-state strategy that leading gay-rights organizations have championed in the fight for marriage equality. The Olson Boies team hopes for a
5、ruling that will transform the legal and social landscape nationwide, something on the order of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, or Loving v. Virginia the landmark 1967 Supreme Court ruling that invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.Olsons interest in this case has puzzled quite a fe
6、w people. Whats in it for him? Is he sincere? Does he really think he can sway the current Course? But when I spoke with Olson, who is sixty-nine, in early December, he sounded confident and impassioned; the case clearly fascinated him both as an intellectual challenge and as a way to make history.
7、“The loving case was forty-two years ago.” he said, perched on the edge of his chair in the law offices of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington DC, where he is a partner, “Its inconceivable to us there days to say that a couple of a different racial background cant get married.” Olson wore a bright
8、ly striped shirt and a paisley tie, without a jacket; there was something folksy in his speech,which reminded me that hes a Westerner, who grew up and was educated in Northern California. He said, “Separate is not equal. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are not the same as marriage. Were not i
9、nventing any new right, or creating a new right, or asking the courts to recognize a new right. The Supreme Court has said over and over and over again that marriages is a fundamental right and although our opponents say, Well, thats always been involving a man and a woman. When the Supreme Court ha
10、s talked about it theyve said its an associational right, its a liberty right, its a privacy right, and its an expression of your identity, which is all wrapped up in the Constitution.” The Justices of the Supreme Court, Olson said, “are individuals who will consider this seriously, and give it good
11、 attention,” and he was optimistic that he could persuade them. (The losing side in San Francisco will likely appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and from there the case could proceed to the Supreme Court.) Olsons self-assurance has a sound basis: he has argued fifty-six cases before the high court he was
12、one of the busiest lawyers before the Supreme Court bench last year and prevailed in forty-four of them. Justices Sandra Day OConnor and Anthony Kennedy attended his wedding three years ago, in Napa. Olson said that he wanted the gay-marriage case to be a “teaching opportunity, so people will listen
13、 to us talk about the importance of treating people with dignity and respect and equality and affection and love and to stop discriminating against people on the basis of sexual orientation”.If the Perry case succeeds before the Supreme Court, it could mean that gay marriage would be permitted not o
14、nly in California but in every state. And, if the Court recognized homosexuals as indistinguishable from heterosexuals for the purposes of marriage law, it would be hard,if not impossible, to uphold any other laws that discriminated against people on the basis of sexual orientation.However, a loss f
15、or Olson and Boies could be a major setback to the movement for marriage equality. Soon after Olson and Boies filed the case,last May,some leading gay-rights organizations among them the A. C. L. U., Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, and the National Center for lesbian Rights issued a statement c
16、ondemning such efforts. The odds of success for a suit werent good, the groups said, because the “Supreme Court typically does not get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of states.” The legal precedent that these groups were focused on wasnt Loving v. Virginia but,rather,Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1936 Supreme Court decision that stunned gay-rights advocates by upholding Georgias antiq
