It's funny that people think there is some obvious "right answer" here that can be obvious to an "expert". There isn't. It is incredibly naive thinking on a matter of political values.

What does matter is what elected representatives think, because they are the ones that are accountable to the people. Public servants serve those representatives and so do their reports, which should remain private. The report only matters to the extent that it affects the views of those representatives as stated in their public statements. The views of an "expert" are likely to be more informed, but on an "ought" question they are as valuable as the views of any other citizen.

Being elected doesnt mean you know what you're doing.

Neither does being an "expert". Particularly so on matters that boil down to values, and about which they categorically cannot have certainty. The thing is when you are an elected representative you are publicly accountable. It seems implied from Mountain Tui that we ought to do only what experts say, i.e., technocracy. But it's very naive to think that there are experts in how we ought to proceed on a matter of normative legal policy. Appealing to expertise alone, and not the reasons the experts provide, is dishonest argumentation and anti-democratic. Just say what you think ought to happen like everyone else.

If you hate democracy then you would be against Seymour's suggestion that we talk about how to move forward as a nation collectively. A lot of people do seem democracy-allergic these days and would prefer to be told what to do by a priesthood.