Prevailing Doctrinal Assumptions, Part I

It's amazing how the assumptions of established doctrine get so firmly set into the way we discuss about issues. Recently, many of you may have heard about the attempt to stop "frivolous lawsuits". Never mind that this is a transparent attempt to interfere with the autonomy of the judicial branch. Never mind that "frivolous lawsuits" will undoubtedly be defined to include any lawsuit brought against a corporation, as we think it's within a corporation's rights to sell products without providing any information about their product's superiority, or even any information about the product whatsoever.
Maybe I'm just being cynical, but for some reason I don't think that the people pushing these insane propositions have this in mind: Today's Something Awful (www.somethingawful.com) article, talking about how Monster Cable sued Monster's Inc. (the Disney movie) and practically anything that ever uttered the word "monster", ever. These lawsuits are patently frivolous, just like Fox's whiny suit about how Al Franken was violating copyright by satirizing Fox's "fair and balanced" (when in fact even their supporters recognize them as being neither, but as being unapologetic conservative pap).