Justice Scalia writes in various places in his King v. Burwell dissent from this morning:
Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act! . . .
Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act! . . .
Contrivance, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!
See also Scalia’s dissent in Johnson v. Transportation Agency (1987):
GLENDOWER: I can call Spirits from the vasty Deep.
HOTSPUR: Why, so can I, or so can any man. But will they come when you do call for them?
Speaking of Scalia and understatement, see also Scalia’s concurrence in NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014):
With like understatement, one could say that Shakespeare’s Mark Antony “disagreed with” Caesar’s detractors.
(On understatement, see also Scalia in MCI v. AT&T (1994), though this is about the French Revolution now, not Shakespeare.)
See also Justice Ginsburg’s dissent in Shelby County v. Holder (2013):
See also Justice Kennedy in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), on what Romeo and Juliet teaches us about underage sex.