FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. · ¶100

Consistent with the “classic criticism” of courts’ use of legislative history, the majority’s aversion to the employment of this interpretive tool appears to stem from an intuition that “Congress’s subjective intent [is] [un]knowable.” Ante, at 12. But it is hard to take that criticism seriously when the modern Court nonetheless routinely interprets statutes by speculating about what Congress must have wanted. See, e.g., Learning Resources, 607 U. S., at ＿＿＿ (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 8) (drawing from a “practical understanding of legislative intent” that “Congress would not have delegated highly consequential power through ambiguous language” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.