HAMMER: Here’s how states can help conservatives secure even more legal victories

America is currently in the midst of a broader political realignment. The political left, which once claimed to defend the forgotten “little guy” against the titans of Big Business, has decided in recent years that Big Business is Actually an ally of convenience in his long Gramscian “march” through the institutions. Perhaps Chris Rufo demonstrated this trend better than anyone.

And the political right, whose once instinctive neoliberal leanings made it a handy ally for big business, is now rethinking its approach to political economy in general, as well as its specific relationship with culturally left-leaning multinational corporations. The most tangible recent expression of this overhaul was the crippling punishment inflicted by Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on the Walt Disney Company for coming out on behalf of the sexual grooming of innocent children in the Sunshine State.

Times, as Bob Dylan used to sing, are changing. (RELATED: ANDERSON: Disney Overdosed on Revival. You’d Think They’d Know Better By Now)

But as conservatives (cautiously) begin to pursue a more contentious agenda to rein in the corporate oligarchs who hate us and seek to subjugate us, like Amazon, the responsibility will shift a bit to an area of ​​underdeserved attention: judicial economy.

More specifically, if the Conservatives want to better ensure our meritorious woke tyranny legal challenges stand out and are not dismissed out of hand, it becomes important to better screen and eliminate, frivolous lawsuits – and frivolous tort lawsuits, in particular. Each frivolous tort suit grinds the wheels of the already overtaxed legal system and diverts scarce time, attention and resources from real concerns.

Consider, for example, the proliferation of harmful “public nuisance” tort litigation, which I have already described elsewhere. Fortunately, the Oklahoma Supreme Court pulled the rug out from under public nuisance litigation advocates in a landmark decision last fall. Or consider the well-known proliferation of medical malpractice litigation in the United States; it is estimated that there are approximately 20,000 malpractice suits filed in the country each year, the majority of which are frivolous.

The cumulative effect of the metastasis of these types of frivolous litigation is to stall work and make it more difficult for focused, prudential litigation against valid targets. Some of these litigation would involve the more realistic and cautious use of antitrust against the overly powerful and overly woke Silicon Valley oligarchs who control our 21stpublic square of the last century.

And some of those strategic litigation would result in consumer fraud class action lawsuits if, and when, Big Tech companies violate their terms of service.

The net effect of such litigation should be a deterrent against woke corporations who want to use corporate power to bend half the population. We must fight back. But our task is only made more difficult by the proliferation of truly frivolous lawsuits.

Reform is therefore necessary. But it takes time. In the meantime, some companies are doing their best to avoid blatantly spurious lawsuits from self-interested attorneys in hopes of scrubbing the work and bringing home some extra bacon. A creative legal strategy, from the state where I used to practice law, is what is called the Texas Two-Step.

Under the Texas Business Organizations Code, a business can be split into two, with one entity receiving all liabilities with limited assets for tort victims and the other, larger, being able to isolate its assets from the liabilities. Since the new, smaller entity will not have enough assets of its own to cover all the debts, it may file for bankruptcy, moving the case from civil to bankruptcy court. Such a tactic thus helps to obliterate the civil role, amounting to a victory not only for the frivolously sued defendant, but also for the judicial economy more broadly.

Tort lawyers, who always tend to be political progressives, tend to hate these kinds of strategies. And if progressives are skeptical of defensive maneuvers like the Texas Two-Step, they should work with conservatives to make real, longer-lasting reforms.

But if stopgap measures are what it takes to free up bandwidth on the case to focus on more pressing legal matters, such as antitrust lawsuits and even consumer fraud lawsuits against Big Tech, then so be it. More states should consider dancing to the rhythm of Texas Two-Step.

Josh Hammer is Newsweek opinion writer, host of “The Josh Hammer Show”, syndicated columnist and researcher at the Edmund Burke Foundation. Twitter: @josh_hammer.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation is available at no cost to any eligible news publisher who can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.