Judge Guido Calabresi : The Future of Law and Economics [61:30-66:35]

You might have a gun that could only be used by somebody who did not have a criminal background. I'd leave it up to the industry to figure out the ways within centers now would you do it from tort law as it is today probably not even in theory because tort law is so inefficient. There are so many administrative costs but think about a way in which one could allocate for costs of guns in the same way we very not effectively but to some extent. To some extent allocate the costs of cars and you might come up with good ideas you know it's interesting we have no cars which have spikes on the front which impale people. It's surprising I'm sure that there would be lots of people who would like to do that. But the insurance cost to them of a car of that sort would be wild no insurance company would ensure you unless you were willing to pay a huge amount. So it's out the market were in a wonderful way. It would be kind of interesting to think about and I'm not saying that one should do it because the market doesn't dominate us politically but kind of interesting to think of what the market would do about gun safety were it allowed to operate. I'm going to use my prerogative as a moderator and substitute for Jeff by going over I'm going to use that power for good today and so this may be my last time as well. But I want to ask a couple more questions. Well I've got you you had mentioned earlier and the judges followed law of course I think almost everybody would agree with that. Does that make being a Supreme Court justice harder or easier given the nature of the Constitution? Well tell me again what so you suggested judges follow the law when we get to the didn't hear that you suggested what you suggested earlier the judges follow the law follow the law well of course being a Supreme Court justice you have much much more room because you do have a Constitution and have to follow the Constitution. But what the Constitution says gives you much more room a judge on my court is bound by the Supreme Court and they bind us they very rarely take our cases so that most of the time we know we are of a court of last resort and we write differently when we know it's a case they will take we write much more broadly given much more of a menu hoping to help them. And when instead we're of a court of last resort we're much more likely to say this is the way it is because but as courts of last resort we are bound by what they say we're also bound by previous decisions of our court so that we have much less room the Supreme Court is not bound by its previous decisions and it reads the Constitution in very different ways as it wishes so that it can do much much more. It is still a court vote and still is bound in some ways by the law two stories on this when I was Dean reaching the end of my deanship Connecticut's governor who had been a classmate of mine in college Lowell Wiker suggested that I might be Chief Justice of Connecticut. I said no because Connecticut had a retirement age of 70 and I thought that would be much more fun much more interesting I hadn't really thought of a court of appeals because to be the Supreme Court of Connecticut in areas like torts and contracts you know one could do so much more when had Connecticut's Constitution but one could do so much more. I couldn't do it because I was already in my daughter to take me three or four years to learn my job and by the time I had learned it I would be lame duck retired so I said no and I went on a court of appeals because President Clinton decided if he wanted me well I never had no idea what such a court did and I found it was wonderful but as an idea I was more interested in the other.