. . . Most Succinct Supreme Court Opinion of the Year: Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (June 21, 2004). Scalia is well known for despising the practice of judges to mine the congressional record for snippets that appear to support the sometimes bizarre way they wish to construe statutes. Here is the entirety of the Scalia concurrence:
As today’s [majority] opinion shows, the Court’s disposition is required by the text of the statute. None of the limitations urged by petitioner finds support in the categorical language of 28 U. S. C. §1782(a). That being so, it is not only (as I think) improper but also quite unnecessary to seek repeated support in the words of a Senate Committee Report–which, as far as we know, not even the full committee, much less the full Senate, much much less the House, and much much much less the President who signed the bill, agreed with. Since, moreover, I have not read the entire so-called legislative history, and have no need or desire to do so, so far as I know the statements of the Senate Report may be contradicted elsewhere.
Accordingly, because the statute–the only sure expression of the will of Congress–says what the Court says it says, I join in the judgment.