Kerby Anderson

As we go forward on removing restrictions from the lockdown, how should we make rational and intelligent decisions? Andrew McCarthy brings us back to our legal system that places the burden of proof on the government. He recognizes that trying to make reasonable decisions about the pandemic during an election year is difficult. Everything, including science, has been politicized. Of course, it was politicized even before the election season arrived. But now it is worse. That is why he says government should bear the burden of proof. He says, “Day after day, the system pits the government’s compelling interest in public safety against our most fundamental freedoms — liberty, property and, in capital cases, life itself.” By contrast, the argument from authority “has no place in the justice system.” We don’t deprive people of their fundamental freedoms merely because an expert or a professional says that it should be limited. Our judicial system requires that the government bear the burden of proof. Accused Americans are presumed innocent. They are entitled to their fundamental liberties and do not have to prove their entitlement. In the current case, the public-safety side and the liberty side need to examine scientists and even summon their own scientific witnesses. And their assessment can even be subjected to cross-examination. Consider another issue: whether a business is essential or non-essential. “It is not an American’s burden to prove that his or her job is ‘essential’ rather than ‘non-essential,’ as some government official subjectively defines those terms; it is the government’s burden to prove that the job in question cannot be performed safely under any conditions.” These are the rules we use in court. “No one wants to see infectious disease spread. No one wants to see the economy destroyed.” Let’s apply these centuries-old principles as we move forward to try to return the country to normalcy.