First, allow me to completely disavow LWM's unfortunate decision to resort to invective and smearing when simple logical and factual argumentation would have sufficed. I deplore that.

Having said that, though, where do I begin...

It is up to judges to decide what "scientist" is competent to give expert scientific testimony.

Um, no. Under what legal rule or precedent can a judge rightfully exclude a given scientist's testimony on their own, absent legitimate objections by the other side's lawyers? Otherwise, judges (or juries) can only rule on their belief in the legitimacy or relevance of a given scientist's testimony in their final rulings, and only upon having been presented with facts and arguments and counterfacts and counterarguments from both sides. It is not the courts' responsibility to be expert in anything but the law. The rest is up to both sides. If one side fails to refute the other side's dishonest facts and arguments, it is not the courts' responsibility to say "Hey, that's not fair!", but, perhaps, at most "Sorry, it's not my fault if you've got bad lawyers".

To cite but one fairly recent example, was it Judge Ito's reponsibility to sweep aside the OJ legal team's clearly disengenuous (if technically legitimate) defense and say "Hey, he obviously did it, so I reject your clever tactics!"? No, of course not. It was just job to sit there and make sure that both sides were following the rules, and accept whatever verdict the jury rendered, whether or not he liked or agreed with it. That's just how our judicial system works. The courts are the enforcers of the legal rules, not of "truth".

Judges are not gods, you know.

Correct, and which actually goes against your argument.

Do you not expect science to police itself to some degree and make a fuss about this wretched state of affairs?

Yes, within the realm of science proper, which is what peer review, accreditation and replication and such are for. But not in other domains, such as the law. It is not the obligation of science to police the courts. Although, I don't think it would at all be a bad idea if major scientific organizations on their own decided to create legal divisions that acted as sources of reliable science for use by litigants, and as watchdogs for when science was abused in the courts. But this doesn't absolve each side in suits from doing their utmost to refute the other side's lies.

High-powered lawfirms for the plaintiff's bar, expecting a third of the recovery on a multi-million $ suit, are very good at getting crackpot science admitted. They put these "scientists" through mock cross-examination until they can spin bullshit that mesmerizes a jury.

And major corporations and government can't afford them as well? This makes no sense to me. The "it's just not fair" argument simply has no merit.

But if you think our court system has been perfect, and that a lot of judges have not let nonsensical "experts" testify, well, I don't know what more to say.

I never said perfect, and I'm sure there's plenty of room for improvement to keep up with emerging science, technology and new areas of legal action. But this is the basic system we've had for centuries, and I would be loath to tamper with it just because some people get a raw deal. And it is simply not a judge's place to exclude certain witnesses or evidence because they object to them on a purely factual or legitimacy basis. That is for opposing lawyers to bring up, and if they don't then they are remiss, not the judges.

And doesn't this whole line of argumentation that judges should be more active in determining what is and isn't legitimate science go against your whole critiuque of the "nanny state", because in these arguments you're clearly arguing for MORE government intervention, not less?