One of my Harvard classmates raised some interesting questions as to the handling of the allegations raised by Professor Ford against Justice Kavanaugh. I tend to agree with a recent Wall Street Journal editorial which argues that recent events support the view that justice in America has been turned on its head. In my day, the early 70s, old time liberalism stood for the common law tradition of due process, that is, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In the case of a criminal complaint or charge, the onus is on the state to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not on a balance of probabilities.
Believe or not, I came to Harvard as a third generation Pierre Trudeau liberal/Kennedy liberal. In those days, my liberal heroes were the civil rights lawyers who defended civil rights protesters like the Chicago Seven, alleged domestic terrorists, The Black Panthers and marginalized African-Americans in biased southern courts.
As to the latter, in certain southern courts then, civil rights lawyers fought against the notion that one’s race and color undermined one’s credibility as a witness. In other words, because of their color, African-Americans should not be believed. Contrast that with American liberal thought today, that because of one’s gender- the allegations of females should always be believed.
These same civil rights lawyers fought for a fair, independent and impartial judicial system in which every accused was entitled to a fair trial which required the accused to face his complainant in court, hear the complainant’s allegations and through his counsel’s right to cross-examine, the accused had the right to test the credibility of the complainant’s allegations and the facts that supported that complainant.
This adversarial judicial system works best when all the key players are permitted to play their roles. The defence counsel is professionally obligated to fight fiercely on behalf of his/her client which includes vigorously testing the credibility of the complainant’s testimony. The prosecutor is obligated to perform his/her role by presenting the facts fairly and being forced to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
We have a new liberal judicial system where the complainant sets the rules on what can be asked of her and what cannot and even who can ask the questions
But in Ford vs. Kavanaugh, we have a new liberal judicial system where Kavanaugh is presumed guilty on the basis of unsupported and unsubstantiated allegations. And the onus is on Kavanaugh to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
We have a new liberal judicial system where the complainant denies the right of the accused to be in the same room as the complainant and where the complainant wants the accused to testify first. (Note in real criminal trials, there is no obligation on the accused to testify at all. The onus is on the state to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt even if the accused does not testify.)
We have a new liberal judicial system where the complainant sets the rules on what can be asked of her and what cannot and even who can ask the questions. Hence, we have a new liberal judicial system, where the accused has been denied his constitutional right to challenge the credibility and veracity of his complainant, through cross examination.
Support Canada Free Press
In other words, the complainant Ford and her liberal supporters want this Senate Judicial hearing and criminal trials in general, to resemble a liberal college campus kangaroo court.
This new liberal judicial system seems to work for many liberals when the complainant is a female and the accused is a white privileged male.
I doubt this new liberal judicial system will work for these very same liberals, when they themselves are the accused. Or when the accused are African-Americans, Latinos, undocumented aliens, illegal immigrants, or for any American citizen facing the awesome power of the state.
In this context, I still see myself as an old school liberal of the 70s, a supporter of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) of the 70s.
In other words, I did not leave liberalism, the liberalism of the 70s left me.
Mitch Wolfe, a graduate of Harvard University, is the author of “Trump: How He Captured The Trump White House”, which he wrote and had published prior to the election. (available on Amazon.com)
One of my Harvard classmates raised some interesting questions as to the handling of the allegations raised by Professor Ford against Justice Kavanaugh. I tend to agree with a recent Wall Street Journal editorial which argues that recent events support the view that justice in America has been turned on its head. In my day, the early 70s, old time liberalism stood for the common law tradition of due process, that is, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In the case of a criminal complaint or charge, the onus is on the state to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not on a balance of probabilities. 
