I could be totally wrong here since I don’t have a great understanding of how these processes worked. So downvote if you will but I’d like to be corrected.
Does this even really matter when in a lot of cases the ‘experts’ were often paid to say whatever corporations wanted anyhow? See the current climate crisis and all the ‘experts’ that guided policy and enabled it.
Obviously letting the courts just go by whatever their guts tell them isn’t the answer, but some sort of a best guess based on a large enough scientific consensus?
Having some experts be paid shills while giving other experts the chance to actually legitimately affect change is not the same as handing every decision over to non-experts who incidentally just made defacto bribery legal for their positions.
This isn’t a random expert. He’s a supreme court judge. The courts should be independent and impartial. In the US this is not the case, and it is endangering democracy.
I could be totally wrong here since I don’t have a great understanding of how these processes worked. So downvote if you will but I’d like to be corrected.
Does this even really matter when in a lot of cases the ‘experts’ were often paid to say whatever corporations wanted anyhow? See the current climate crisis and all the ‘experts’ that guided policy and enabled it.
Obviously letting the courts just go by whatever their guts tell them isn’t the answer, but some sort of a best guess based on a large enough scientific consensus?
Having some experts be paid shills while giving other experts the chance to actually legitimately affect change is not the same as handing every decision over to non-experts who incidentally just made defacto bribery legal for their positions.
This isn’t a random expert. He’s a supreme court judge. The courts should be independent and impartial. In the US this is not the case, and it is endangering democracy.