Comment by LudwigNagasena

> And no, cases don't often make it to the Supreme Court because the wording of the law is ambiguous. They make it to the SC because the parties disagree on legal principles and on whether laws are unconstituional or not.

I don’t see how those are exclusionary principles. Also, I have never heard about this case, but after some simple googling I learned that the Supreme Court indeed had to figure out the definition for children in a particular law: https://berkeleysolicitors.ie/supreme-court-determines-defin...

> Still, this seems to be the opposite problem compared to what was raised earlier.

No, it is the same problem I mentioned before: some laws define it in a contradictory way; some laws don’t define it. I told you it’s a fun exercise!

> Do we want laws to be more explicit about their exact definitions of words, or more implicit?

I want laws to make sense. Inconsistency doesn’t make sense and only brings troubles. Vagueness is good. Ambiguity is bad.