• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Long, drawn-out court battles?


DP Veteran
Jan 22, 2008
Reaction score
Political Leaning
When people think "litigation," particularly when they juxtapose it with arbitration, they typically think "lots and lots of money and lots and lots of time."

Well, I'm not going to get into the money aspect. Instead, I'm going to get into the aspect of time.

Does litigation really HAVE to be so long and tedious? Honestly, I have read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (you can read them, too! They're right here!). They have time limits for a lot of these things, but the smallest time limit is 30 days. For example, a defendant has thirty days to respond to an initial complaint, or else face default judgment.

Now, we're not talking about "you've got thirty days to get yourself a lawyer, tender a thorough defense, and produce all evidence that you plan to use in your defense." No, you have 30 days to write up a response simply saying "The plaintiff's full of crap!" put it in the mail, and have the judge read it and put it on the docket! F*CK YOU!

Way back when, this was actually necessary because communication wasn't as lightning fast as it is now. Nowadays, however, there's just no excuse for that.

Hey, for something as simple as that, how 'bout reducing the time limit from 30 days, to seven?

Do that across the board, and we've essentially reduced the time that litigation takes down to a fourth of what it is, now!

"You have a judgment against you. You have one week to appeal it, not thirty days."
"You have been asked to admit, or deny, some key facts in the case. You have seven days to tender your answer to them, not thirty. Of course, you don't have to launch any 'counter-facts' or anything; just say that you deny those facts! If you admit the fact, check Y. If you deny the fact, check N. Do that across the board. It's that damned simple!"

Why the hell do you need THIRTY GOD DAMNED DAYS to say "I admit this fact, and I deny this fact." Honestly, what the F*CK!

I've heard a lot of people advocate "tort reform." Well, what about civil procedure reform? No one ever contemplates the possibility that civil procedure is just as flawed as the people who file frivolous lawsuits. Honestly, if people complain about the length of litigation, instead of turning to arbitration, they should, instead, advocate litigation reform.

Top Bottom