Using that logic no accountant could ever be an auditor. Do you think just anyone can audit books, or does one need formal understanding of accounting principles?
Maybe scientific articles should no longer be subject to peer review. Let's mandate that nobody with a degree in natural science can vet a scientific article. That will eliminate the conflict of interest.
Also, no more engineers as building or highway inspectors. Let's use short-order cooks.
The anti-intellectualism on this thread is scary. I do not like political elites, but the idea that expert knowledge in a complex field like the law is unnecessary is beyond naive.
Wow! Three strawmen in one reply. Is that a record? First, an accountant is by definition an auditor, not that you would know; did you mean book keeper?
"Also, no more engineers as building or highway inspectors. Let's use short-order cooks"
It's been 27 years since I was an inspector, and I wasn't licensed at that time, as inspectors rarely are; it's an entry level position. When you see an engineer as an inspector, you know you have a clown on your hands.
"The anti-intellectualism on this thread is scary."
I think you mean psuedointellectualism, because that is your true line.
"I do not like political elites, but the idea that expert knowledge in a complex field like the law is unnecessary is beyond naive."
When a judge begins to believe that he is an expert, we get judicial legislation, activism. Their heads are clouded with previous errors, and bias. Appellate judges need no complex knowledge of past mistakes; their heads need to be clear and sharp. This is the very essence of what is wrong with our judicial system.