> They have background in interpreting the law and in listening to and evaluating expert testimony
They don't have expertise in evaluating scientific studies or the fields those studies cover at all. At best they can decide who they believe more and there's an endless well of industry backed experts available to preach the company line. It's also far less predictable because the outcomes will be massively different depending on the judge involved. It'd be circuit split city if all the cases we're going to be filed in the 5th which is wildly pro business.
> short-lived experts appointed by an executive who cycles out the rules every four years
That's not what happens though, the rules are relatively stable and have legislatively required notice and comment periods where industry can challenge and prepare for coming rules. And once in place they generally remain the same because there's the same process for removing the rules as creating them. Congress also has the ultimate power over these as they can directly write new laws addressing over reaches as they find them.
The Supreme Court didn't need a background in programming to decide Google v Oracle. The lawyers arguing before the court weren't programmers either. But you can bet that they were briefed by people who could bridge programming and copyright law.
Oracle v Google was at it's heart just a copyright case with relatively simple facts far from the chore of evaluating if a scientific study has valid evidence for it's claims and conclusions when you've got a bank of experts on either side.
They don't have expertise in evaluating scientific studies or the fields those studies cover at all. At best they can decide who they believe more and there's an endless well of industry backed experts available to preach the company line. It's also far less predictable because the outcomes will be massively different depending on the judge involved. It'd be circuit split city if all the cases we're going to be filed in the 5th which is wildly pro business.
> short-lived experts appointed by an executive who cycles out the rules every four years
That's not what happens though, the rules are relatively stable and have legislatively required notice and comment periods where industry can challenge and prepare for coming rules. And once in place they generally remain the same because there's the same process for removing the rules as creating them. Congress also has the ultimate power over these as they can directly write new laws addressing over reaches as they find them.