The Injustice of Dynamic Statutory Interpretation

How can we possibly plan our lives on the basis of the law of tomorrow when we can\u27t predict what that law will be? Are courts that are attracted to dynamic statutory interpretation teaching us that we can no longer know and rely on the rule of law in our daily lives because months or years later they can use policy considerations to make new law and apply that law retroactively to us? Doesn\u27t dynamic statutory interpretation amount to unconstitutional ex post facto legislation? Hasn\u27t justice become impossible to get from courts if judges insist on upsetting both sides\u27 expectations of what law was when their case or controversy arose, and instead pull the rug out from under their feet with new law based on the judges\u27 own idea of general social and governmental policy? Isn\u27t this just a case of judges appropriating the rights of the parties, without compensation, in order to announce new social legislation? Isn\u27t this the very definition of injustice