The rules of evidence in the main are based on experience, logic, and common sense, less hampered by history than some parts of the substantive law.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Rule-following, legal precedence, and political consistency are not more important than right, justice and plain common-sense.
We do not need a heavy theoretical thumb on the scales. What's important is how the traditional sources of law and legal interpretation - text, structure, history, canons of interpretation, precedent, and other well-established tools of the judicial craft - are prioritized, weighted, and applied.
Law gave me some structure... all these rules and internal disciplines.
All decisions in the criminal justice system must be determined by the physical and scientific evidence, and the credible testimony corroborated by that evidence, not in response to public outcry.
I hold that the propositions embodied in natural science are not derived by any definite rule from the data of experience, and that they can neither be verified nor falsified by experience according to any definite rule.
History creates comprehensibility primarily by arranging facts meaningfully and only in a very limited sense by establishing strict causal connections.
Every fundamental law has exceptions. But you still need the law or else all you have is observations that don't make sense. And that's not science. That's just taking notes.
The facts are always friendly, every bit of evidence one can acquire, in any area, leads one that much closer to what is true.
Every law, every constitution, every regulative decision is based upon what people are discussing in their community. It's based upon our sum knowledge of history and the present.
History is obviously dependent on the evidence, and it's always amazing to me how much evidence there is.