The expert-witnesses are ment to explain the problems in laymen-terms, while the court is to precide over the judicial implications given by the law that are a

The expert-witnesses are ment to explain the problems in laymen-terms, while the court is to precide over the judicial implications given by the law that are a supposed as a level baseline. If the expert would be judge directly, he'd need expertize in law or possibly require judicial expert-witness. The Jury is supposed to level bias. Industry experts in politics is more sensical, as legislature is where by definition speciallized law is written. They are littered with economic opinions, not to say business sock puppets, already, while judges are merely incompetent on technical matters atop being burdened with - let's say - type-unsafe law code. This happens already of course, but there's little opportunity for activist, apparently.