3 ms·
Should the judicial branch have greater say than a specialist when considering specialist topics? Such as food safety, medical procedures, drug approvals, thre
by falcolas 3y ago
Should the judicial branch have greater say than a specialist when considering specialist topics?
Such as food safety, medical procedures, drug approvals, thresholds for minimizing the environmental impact of millions of chemicals, aircraft maintenance standards, and thousands of other laws maintained by agencies.
Seems foolish to burden the courts with the additional work when they (should) just defer to the specialists when the topic comes up in court.
- nickff 3y ago>"Should the judicial branch have greater say than a specialist when considering specialist topics?" Should Congress or the President?
- falcolas 3y agoBoth of whom also do (or should) defer to specialists. Consultants, lobbyists (not all of which is corrupted by money, though much of it is), hearings, depositions, etc. Neil deGrasse Tyson, for example, does not testify in front of congress just for the press.
- w4 3y ago> Both of whom also do (or should) defer to specialists. Consultants, lobbyists (not all of which is corrupted by money, though much of it is), hearings, depositions, etc. So too does the judiciary, in addition to the same hearings and depositions you reference in other branches: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness