> You're just talking about case law. No, I'm not. Statutory interpretation isn't inherently clear just because you SAY it would be. Interpreting statutes does

> You're just talking about case law. No, I'm not. Statutory interpretation isn't inherently clear just because you SAY it would be. Interpreting statutes does not have to be done with an eye towards previous cases. It can be done in a vacuum, as I pointed out to you in another thread - that's how it works in civil law. Even in common law, the factual circumstances of a case dictate whether or not precedential cases are relevant. Nevertheless... there is an INTERPRETATION LAYER. >What I'm talking about are laws that a lawyer cannot tell you with a high degree of certainty what the outcome would be in court, because it was made purposely fuzzy specifically to allow the law to be retroactively interpreted adversely against anyone who draws the ire of the government. Ok - give an example of such a law... > Here you go: In matters of statutory construction when the government is the prosecutor/regulator, the parties submit their briefs, they're read by 9 independent judges who are all told to construe the statute against the government if it's ambiguous, the judges don't get to talk to each other, the defense gets to choose which judge's interpretation to use, and that interpretation becomes precedent until the legislature changes it by statute. You are suggesting that a defendant get to set precedent merely based upon their own selection. You are aware that, save for that, this exactly how the appeals circuit functions? Like, I'd be happy to have this conversation genuinely with you, but you clearly have no experience in the legal world. Ambiguity is ALWAYS construed against the government and it's a foundational principal of our legal system. It seems more like the problem is your own ignorance, not how the law actually functions. Also, it seems like you do not understand the distinction between civil courts in the united states and criminal courts.