Court Opinion

ID: 9753615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:20:21.204386+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:39.121849
License: Public Domain

Justice ROBINSON,
concurring.
Although I concur in the majority’s opinion, I write this brief separate opinion simply to record the fact that I have found this to be an exceedingly close case. Credible arguments have been made by both parties, and there is a dearth of genuinely “on point” precedent.
Having said that, I realize that cases have to be decided; and I believe that the view expressed in the opinion of the Court is the better view. I think that the Court’s reading of the term “public funds” in the statute at issue is, upon due reflection, the only truly logical one.
*1273I conclude this brief concurring opinion by quoting an astute observation that Justice Louis D. Brandéis of the United States Supreme Court once made to his colleague Justice Robert H. Jackson. Reflecting upon the fact that his role as an arbiter of the law required him to make a decision when the correct answer was often far from apparent, Justice Brandéis commented as follows:
“[T]he difficulty with this place is that if you’re only fifty-five percent convinced of a proposition, you have to act and vote as if you were one hundred percent convinced. * * * You’ve got to decide the case one way or the other. Therefore the result oftentimes doesn’t reflect the residue of doubt that remains in the minds of the men [and women] who’ve decided it.” Melvin I. Urofsky, Louis D. Brandéis: A Life 836 n. 474 (2009).
I am in full agreement with that felicitously worded observation.
Having set forth these few comments, I conclude by reiterating that I concur in the opinion of the Court.