If you gotta go into all kinds of contortions, if you got to go outside the bounds of the law to save the act, and that’s what the New York Times quotes Justice Roberts saying. Justice Roberts suggested that even he didn’t find the tax argument especially plausible, but he quoted Justice Holmes to explain why it was good enough. “As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid,” Justice Holmes wrote, that would be Oliver Wendell, “our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act.”

This is the New York Times reporting that Roberts, “Gosh, I got to save the act. I got to save the act.” So he went back and found Oliver Wendell Holmes: “As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act.”

Well, excuse me, Mr. Justice Roberts, but how did that work in your Arizona finding?

GET MORE STORIES LIKE THIS

IN YOUR INBOX!

Sign up for our daily email and get the stories everyone is talking about.

Email
Previous post

Marbury v. Madison is Out and Roberts v. America is In

Next post

Unbelievable! NRCC Fundraises Off of Decision, Agrees It Wasn't the Court's Role to Defend the US Constitution