FX T is typically considered illegitimate-- that is, if your case is only topical by considering its effects, then it shouldn't be topical. Voice of Reason appears to be using a similar argument-- that is, we should decide what is topical based on its effects. This is bad because then the neg would have to research reforms of the federal court system AND anything that might affect the federal court system.
To clarify, I wasn't saying that we determine Topicality based upon the impacts/effects of the case, I was simply saying that (in the role of a judge) I wouldn't be tempted to vote for a case if the advantages were not something I valued (yes, saving money has value if you can impact it, but generally debaters don't do a good job of that). Much of this is a personal quirk that I would have as a judge as opposed to a set-in-stone rule or method. Neg teams would also have to run good arguments along with this (which would be a greater endeavor than simply running FX T), so the burden would still be on Neg, but I think it's a doable strategy.
If the Affirmative team agrees that it can't provide a significant net benefit, then I think it is tacitly agreeing that there isn't a pressing need or desire for change. I also think that debate rounds are for the purpose of fixing real-world actual problems or resolving pressing needs, and I think that spending time on pointless, meritless, or insignificant cases squanders some of the educational value of debate.
I agree that FX T is an illegitimate strategy.