as a function almatter, it reflects in efforts sometime business a subgroup in congress or worst, outside of it to reflect how a statute will be interpreted and implemented in ways the congress and the president may not have wanted. more over legislative history is conflicting arch. it can be in the end like looking out over a crowd and picking out your friends. part from all of those critiques, i have another major problem with how legislative history is used. the clarity versus ambiguity trigger for resorting to legislative history in the first place means that the decision is often indeterminate. that in turn exasperates. if you as a judge all you need to pick out your friends, that is to pick out the result you think is most reasonable is the finding of ambiguity, and if there is no set of principle wade to determine clarity or ambiguity, then some judges are going to be more likely to find ambiguity in certain cases. that is obvious as a matter of common sense and basic human psychology. in a world without initial determine nance of ambiguity, judges would instead decide on the best