Will Baude

And then.

And then I bribed somebody on the committee to push it through.

So I take it that could still be invalid and probably wouldn't be promulgated by the court unless you bribe them too.

I'm not planning a bribery conspiracy, to be clear.

So that's pretty straightforward.

I do think, I mean, and one thing that's really great about this opinion, like the opinion we just talked about, but even more important for this opinion, is how short it is.

Like it's so short that you could almost just put it in a casebook unedited.

But I almost wonder if it's intentional.

I almost wonder if you could imagine Justice Barrett, who has taught law school classes, actually thinking, like, let's write an opinion that could just go in the Civ Pro and Fit Courts case books, lays it out, gives you the rules.

Maybe without the footnotes, but it's nice.

It is a little odd in two respects.

So one is...

I don't know that states have fully thought this through.

Like when states enact these various kinds of tort reform laws, which are in part, you know, work based on procedure,

My guess is they have not thought through that the laws would be more effective if they were rewritten, or at least if, like, a sidecar law.

They could still have this law, and then have, like, a sidecar substantive law that was clearly non-procedural.

Because you could amend your tort law.

The sidecar would be a new version of this statute that says, in addition to the affidavit of merit...

And separate from any requirement that you file an affidavit of merit, as a matter of law, no claim can succeed on the merits if it's not accompanied by an affidavit of merit or something.

I think you just describe it as a merits rule as a matter of law, then rule eight would pick it up and enforce it as a rule of substance.