From a judge's perspective, the impact on the legal system must surely be prominent, if only subconsciously. "Just a bunch of lawyers" is their entire social class.

Every lawsuit filed takes up judicial resources. QI is an effective way to dump a lot of frivolous lawsuits, it just happens to have a really high false positive rate for “frivolous” (and happens to be unconstitutional IMO).

There aren’t different courts for lawsuits against the police. It’s not just police sitting on paid leave but innocent people languishing in jail while their case drags on and actual disputes that aren’t frivolous dragging out rather than being resolved so that the parties can move on.

Overloading the court systems and interfering with the ability of police to do their jobs.

Their job is upholding the law, and access to the courts is one of the highest and most important constitutional rights to ensure trust in the system. One of the HIGHEST laws/rules of their job is ENSURING citizens have access to the courts so they are not doing their job if they are in anyway discouraging such access, especially when their justification is 'inconvenience'. The lawmakers are the ones that create the mechanisms for access to the courts, it is THEIR job to ensure the laws/system are workable when people choose to ACCESS THEIR RIGHTS. That is NOT the police's job, again, that is the law makers job. Qualified immunity is unconstitutional and protections/ensuring the system works is required to be done by lawmakers under the constitution, not illegally giving DELEGATED AUTHORITY from the judicial branch to the executive.

"Upholding the law" also includes prosecuting criminals for violating laws. A flood of frivolous litigation against police that overloads the courts would impair that objective. You can't project your own value judgments about which of those priorities is the "highest and most important."