Comments on: Opening the Floodgates of Litigation and Civil Rights Litigation http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/03/opening_he_floo.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:18:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Jodi http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/03/opening_he_floo.html/comment-page-1#comment-75488 Jodi Sun, 15 May 2011 07:29:25 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/03/opening-the-floodgates-of-litigation-and-civil-rights-litigation.html#comment-75488 wow wow

]]> By: John C http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/03/opening_he_floo.html/comment-page-1#comment-50046 John C Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:38:25 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/03/opening-the-floodgates-of-litigation-and-civil-rights-litigation.html#comment-50046 I'm sure someone has written about this before, but why is the "flood of litigation" a legitimate argument? It seems to me that, given Congress's role over the scope of federal court's jurisdiction, Congress is the one who determines whether courts should have to put up with a flood of litigation. If the reading of a statute gives forth a result that will produce a flood of litigation, why should courts stop that? It just seems that Congress, not the courts, is the determiner of how many cases we can expect to see filed. I'm sure there are arguments against this; is there a difference between determinance of jurisdiction versus determinance of docket? A separation of powers argument based on institutional self-preservation? I know I'm not saying this well, but maybe someone out there gets what I'm saying and will enunciate it better. I’m sure someone has written about this before, but why is the “flood of litigation” a legitimate argument? It seems to me that, given Congress’s role over the scope of federal court’s jurisdiction, Congress is the one who determines whether courts should have to put up with a flood of litigation. If the reading of a statute gives forth a result that will produce a flood of litigation, why should courts stop that? It just seems that Congress, not the courts, is the determiner of how many cases we can expect to see filed.

I’m sure there are arguments against this; is there a difference between determinance of jurisdiction versus determinance of docket? A separation of powers argument based on institutional self-preservation?

I know I’m not saying this well, but maybe someone out there gets what I’m saying and will enunciate it better.

]]>