Fourth. under what conditions will Congress overrule the decisions? Congress initiates legislation for a number of reasons. Among these reasons are the courts' decisions that have strayed away from the policies that power constituencies have agreed upon. Nonetheless, judicial decisions play a ole in the legislation. They help narrow the issues that Congress will address and ometimes help to set the congressional agendas the law. Should the law be specific or general? And who should make the law? of The last two questions are age-old normative questions about the design of The sum and substance of my talk is in praise of common law and its interaction with legislation as an overall system of"muddling through. No specific guidelines are enunciated, and no general policies of law are declared B grandiose plans laced with minute details are laid out. No overall principles wit except to point the directions. Instead, the law is evolving piecemeal, addressing particular conflicts, not al ways uniformly nor predictably. Specificity with respect to select issues. Generality to show overall direction and guide interpretations Both the courts and the legislature make the law, each guided by its own institutional structure and domain. The movement of lawmaking among them is legislature. The legislature, tending to the general, affect the specificity of the interesting because the courts, tending to the specific affect the generality of th courts. i believe that each mutes the other 's movement to the extreme This kind of lawmaking is for the risk-averse --of which i am one Piecemeal solutions reduce the risk of mistakes and the cost of correcting mistakes when they occur-as they are bound to occur. To be sure, this method raises learning costs for the practitioners and consequently the cost for clients. But it reduces for clients the risk of a law that may seriously impede their operations long-term. I believe that, overall, the common law muddling through costs less and is safe To be sure, it would be nice to have clear, bright-line and predictable laws L, and many others, doubt whether that is possible. The second-best would be small retractable steps rather than a fully detailed map-the plan with capital P- that is more rigid. If all steps must fit, they lose the necessary flexibility to adjust to a fast-changing environment and law becomes a stranglehold if enforced and dead letter. if not enforced A. ARE WE WITNESSING THE EMERGENCE OF THE "LAW OF THE NTERNET? A University of Chicago Law School dean branded the classification of Internet law as the "law of the horse " Such a classification he said would produce a shallow understanding of law. It would cover the subject matter of a horse under the laws of contract, tort, crime, racing, efforts to collect prize Frank H. Easterbrook, Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse, 1996U CHI LEGAL F 207, 2073 Fourth, under what conditions will Congress overrule the courts’ decisions? Congress initiates legislation for a number of reasons. Among these reasons are the courts’ decisions that have strayed away from the policies that power constituencies have agreed upon. Nonetheless, judicial decisions play a role in the legislation. They help narrow the issues that Congress will address and sometimes help to set the congressional agendas. The last two questions are age-old normative questions about the design of the law. Should the law be specific or general? And who should make the law? The sum and substance of my talk is in praise of common law and its interaction with legislation as an overall system of “muddling through.” No grandiose plans laced with minute details are laid out. No overall principles with specific guidelines are enunciated, and no general policies of law are declared except to point the directions. Instead, the law is evolving piecemeal, addressing particular conflicts, not always uniformly nor predictably. Specificity with respect to select issues. Generality to show overall direction and guide interpretations. Both the courts and the legislature make the law, each guided by its own institutional structure and domain. The movement of lawmaking among them is interesting because the courts, tending to the specific affect the generality of the legislature. The legislature, tending to the general, affect the specificity of the courts. I believe that each mutes the other’s movement to the extreme. This kind of lawmaking is for the risk-averse -- of which I am one. Piecemeal solutions reduce the risk of mistakes and the cost of correcting mistakes when they occur—as they are bound to occur. To be sure, this method raises learning costs for the practitioners and consequently the cost for clients. But it reduces for clients the risk of a law that may seriously impede their operations long-term. I believe that, overall, the common law muddling through costs less and is safer. To be sure, it would be nice to have clear, bright-line and predictable laws. I, and many others, doubt whether that is possible. The second-best would be small retractable steps rather than a fully detailed map—the plan with capital P— that is more rigid. If all steps must fit, they lose the necessary flexibility to adjust to a fast-changing environment, and law becomes a stranglehold if enforced, and a dead letter, if not enforced. A. ARE WE WITNESSING THE EMERGENCE OF THE “LAW OF THE INTERNET?” A University of Chicago Law School dean branded the classification of Internet law as the “law of the horse.” Such a classification, he said, would produce a shallow understanding of law.2 It would cover the subject matter of a horse under the laws of contract, tort, crime, racing, efforts to collect prize 2 Frank H. Easterbrook, Cyberspace and the Law of the Horse, 1996 U. CHI. LEGAL F. 207, 207