Naive, yes, but no offence intended. You seem sincere, but consider that many judges are political appointees trained in legal matters. They will leave "the sc

Naive, yes, but no offence intended. You seem sincere, but consider that many judges are political appointees trained in legal matters. They will leave "the science" up to expert witnesses who've been paid to say whatever they've been paid to say. Look at the court cases involving Purdue Pharma and Oxycontin, or Phillip Morris and Cigarettes, or any of the oil companies and their oil spills, or Nestlé and cases involving its water sources, or look at the government and gerrymandering. The evidence of judges identifying sound science and it affecting their decisions in major cases - those involving large amounts of money - is not comforting. But if that doesn't convince you, then perhaps you can show us where in the Constitution the judiciary is delegated this power to define truth. Have you never heard the cautionary story of Galileo?