[mywittyname]

This assumes the court can even hear cases in a reasonable amount of time.

An overloaded court system means that defendants are put at a disadvantage and can likely be strong-armed into an agreement that is unfavorable. At least with agencies, companies knew where they stood, after all, most companies probably have a few former agents on staff.

Now it's, better hope you don't lose an injunction and you get a judge capable of understanding the technical reasons why your company should be allowed to operate in that capacity.

I don't think this is the pro-business win that conservatives claim it is. It just changes the rule of the game in ways that I think favor the government. If an agency gets an injunction, then continues to press for continuance based on the fact that they don't have the resources right now, and a judge buys it, then the company end up in judicial purgatory.

[deveac]

>This assumes the court can even hear cases in a reasonable amount of time.

If it's a bandwidth issue, reducing the number of extra-judicial bureaucrats and upping the number of judiciary is pretty straightforward. Seems like a pretty simple rebalancing issue.

>Now it's, better hope you don't lose an injunction and you get a judge capable of understanding the technical reasons

Why would experts (like those that were informing executive agencies on their payroll) not be called here?

[CuriouslyC]

Because the judiciary has been so performant as of late.

[anigbrowl]

The judiciary depends on Congress for its funding, and is perennially underfunded. Arguably this suits the legislative branch because a clogged judicial pipeline encourages people to pursue legislative relief.