When might claims of “too much litigation” be other than political sloganeering?

Abstract

This paper answers “Too Much Litigation?” in three ways. First, when politicos presume or assert that the culture of the United States suffers too much litigation, they often trade in political talking points, expedient distortions, disingenuous enumeration, and opportunistic anecdotalism that tend to preserve or increase the advantages of those who have more over those who have less. Second, when analysts inquire what kinds of litigation serve what purposes well and what purposes poorly, “too much litigation” or “too much litigiousness” may rise above political sloganeering to the extent that scholars take into account how litigation affects the advantages and disadvantages of have-mores and have-lesses. Third, when scholars reconceive litigation as authoritative allocation of values beyond merely winning cases, reaping fees and rewards, and moving law or policy incrementally, notions such as “litigious” and “litigiousness” may become far more and far better than political sloganeering.

Keywords

• U. S. litigation
• U. S. litigiousness
• authoritative allocation of values
• anecdotalism