The Rules of Evidence

The English common law began to take shape about eight hundred years ago. When Henry II initiated what was to become the jury system, its central feature was obtaining evidence so to reach a just decision.  Trials by torture or verdicts contingent on bribery would be replaced by honest testimony.

We know that this system is not perfect.  Nonetheless, it is a far cry from its predecessors.  Centuries have passed during which the rules of evidence were gradually refined.  The goal has been to reduce bias as much as possible.  Given the enormous issues at stake, the temptation to cheat was immense.

These temptations never disappeared, which is why we appoint judges to oversee the administration of evidentiary procedures.  Indeed, judgments are routinely overturned if crucial practices are violated.  Lawyers get disbarred, heavy fines are levied, and careers ruined to emphasize the gravity of these matters.

These techniques are critical because the truth is supposed to count in our courts.  This is the point to examining evidence to make sure it holds up.  Although specific details may not be conclusive, we want a preponderance to point in one direction rather than another.

All of this was irrelevant to the liberals weighing Brett Kavanauh’s appointment to the Supreme Court.  Actually, this is not quite accurate.  Almost every one of them went on record as voting No before they knew the name of the candidate.

And so one of the ways they sought to legitimate their reflexive rejection was to describe the consent process as political.  Senate Judiciary Committee members did not have to honor rules of evidence because they did not apply.  Raw emotion, or political expediency, was sufficient.

Hence when Christine Blasey Ford came forward with her incendiary charges, Democrats rushed to the microphone to declare that they found them credible.  They had not even heard the details of what was alleged before declaring them probable. It was enough that this was a woman saying terrible things about a Republican man.

An even more brazen example of evidence-free confidence occurred after Ford gave her public testimony.  Those Democrats who were already on her side found her sympathetic.  No additional evidence was adduced to corroborate her contentions, but that was immaterial.  We were supposed to feel sorry for her.

What made this exercise especially repellent was that many discrepancies in Ford’s story emerged.  She apparently contradicted herself numerous times along the way.  These inconsitencies, however, could not be pursued because to do so would have attacked a vulnerable woman.

Remember the liberal mantra is that women must always be believed. Evidence need not be sought because a female’s gender certifies her truthfulness.  Conversely, a man must never be believed because his libido ensures that he would have done the deed if he could.

Our courts have never gone so far as to endorse this nonsense. Almost everyone agrees that a thirty-five year old charge not supported by a shred of collaboration could not be brought anywhere in the country.  It would be laughed at by all concerned.

Not so liberal politicians and their knee-jerk constituents.  They are prepared to make up their own evidence. In a court of law an attorney would need a witness to explain what a high school yearbook meant.  On a senate committee, however, a senator could do the testifying.  He could call Kananaugh a liar based on nothing more than the senator’s own unsubstantiated word.

This demonstrates the degree to which liberals have corrupted politics. Truth means nothing to them.  Ergo evidence means nothing.  They may swear up and down on a stack of Bibles that they care, but their behavior proves otherwise.  Demonstrable untruths tumble out of their mouths without a hint of shame. 

Modern liberalism has run out of road.  Too may of its promises have not—and cannot—be fulfilled.  This implies that evidence cannot be adduced to demonstrate their validity.  The only way out of this bind is to discredit the legitimacy of the facts. 

Nonetheless, once our emotions displace evidence, we are ruined.  Facts, as John Adams argued, are stubborn things. They are what they are and have consequences we may not like.  We therefore ignore them at our peril.

Hell-bent on winning whatever the results, liberals discount the long-term effects of writing off evidence.  If they are not careful, they are the ones who may suffer the most.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University