I meant Roe as an example where the absence of federal law triggered a hybrid interpretive mode. Judges follow the plain meaning of the law, but when the text i

I meant Roe as an example where the absence of federal law triggered a hybrid interpretive mode. Judges follow the plain meaning of the law, but when the text is missing, ambiguous, or leads to absurd results, they shift to hybrid methods by applying canons of construction and considering legislative history, purpose, and precedent. (Thank you ChatGPT ) If lawmakers want to do better, the solution is to pass clear legislation. That's not enough in the EU -- they may still use the spirit to override the literal text. RE:Letter vs spirit, the EU interpret statutes more flexibly, even if they're more detailed. In the US, judges do fill gaps (e.g. precedent), but are more rigid in applying the letter when clear. That literalism extends to precedent too. E.g., they rather pedantically follow a past interpretation rather than make a new one. That literal predictability makes it damning for US legislators refusing to legislate. If Roe was clear via federal law, then US judges either have to follow it literally or declare it unconstitutional, and there's little room inbetween. In the EU, judges can more easily go for the spirit.