Most judges are not qualified to understand the expert testimony. Neither are the appellate court judges or the supreme court justices.That's why there's expert testimony allowed in courts. But they don't want the health experts making the legal decisions because the health experts don't know the rights and don't balance the competing interests. And there are checks on the judge in the form of the court of appeals and the Supreme Court, so the arguments can be better vetted over time, which is why the wheels of justice move slowly. It's positively Lockeian in its construction.
What's dangerous is having an expert like Fauci make all the decisions, when he only knows his 1 narrow field, is primed to protect his institution, and is subject to hubris. That's the recipe not only for disaster (given all the mistakes he's made along the way) but also for totalitarianism.
The point is not that there should be no legal review.
The point is that the legal review should be competent. We need minimum scientific training for judges who rule on scientific matters.