The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[old_gregg]

Didn't Ford say she was drinking too? Cuts both ways, I'd say, except it doesn't really cut either way at all.

for what lifetime appointment has she been nominated?

[All-American]

for what lifetime appointment has she been nominated?

Right, because THAT was what was wrong with the argument.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't want to brag but my first guess of which former CSer posted it was correct.

Ha. Me too#

[LiveCoug]

Ha. Me too#

Ditto.

[Pelado]

I don't want to brag but my first guess of which former CSer posted it was correct.

The poster formerly known as nikuman?

[BlueK]

He sounds like the adult in the room. Trumpers seems to hate the guy but he votes in line with Trump as much as anybody, so I dont know why they hate him so much. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...re/jeff-flake/

They hate him because every six months or so he gives a speech on the Senate floor criticizing some of Trump's idiocies like using Maoist and Stalinist terms to talk about the press. Then he goes back to voting with Trump 90% of the time. That speech or that 10% makes him an enemy of the people or something like that because Trump is too effing insecure to tolerate a Senator speaking his mind if it doesn't include mindless praise of the naked emperor.

[MartyFunkhouser]

They hate him because every six months or so he gives a speech on the Senate floor criticizing some of Trump's idiocies like using Maoist and Stalinist terms to talk about the press. Then he goes back to voting with Trump 90% of the time. That speech or that 10% makes him an enemy of the people or something like that because Trump is too effing insecure to tolerate a Senator speaking his mind if it doesn't include mindless praise of the naked emperor.

So basically he doesn't act like Hatch?

[Uncle Ted]

Analysis of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's Allegations by Rachel Mitchell... TL;DR: A nice version of "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!"

[Bo Diddley]

Analysis of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's Allegations by Rachel Mitchell... TL;DR: A nice version of "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!"

Yes definitely TL;DR. But I did skim the first little bit. What's this preponderance of evidence standard? That's something I'm interested in hearing more about.

[smokymountainrain]

The poster formerly known as nikuman?

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?5826-The-Supreme-Court-bastion-of-conservatism&p=1383175&viewfull=1#post1383175

[Uncle Ted]

Yes definitely TL;DR. But I did skim the first little bit. What's this preponderance of evidence standard? That's something I'm interested in hearing more about.

I think it is a "weak sauce" burden of proof... in other words, she is saying there is not enough there to even get the scales to tip a little.

[Bo Diddley]

I think it is a "weak sauce" burden of proof... in other words, she is saying there is not enough there to even get the scales to tip a little.

Well preponderance of evidence means 51%, or more likely than not. This is the standard used in civil cases. I'm wondering what she's arguing--is this standard being used in the confirmation at all? If so, that's pretty silly. We'll only disqualify someone if they exceed that standard?

[BlueK]

The only standard is enough Senators that believe he's qualified and a good choice. Each one of them can use whatever judgment they want to decide that. Blame the Constitution if you don't like that.

[falafel]

Well preponderance of evidence means 51%, or more likely than not. This is the standard used in civil cases. I'm wondering what she's arguing--is this standard being used in the confirmation at all? If so, that's pretty silly. We'll only disqualify someone if they exceed that standard?

She mentioned how her background is in the legal field, so she was going to use legal terms, etc. Preponderance is the lowest bar for proof, the easiest standard to meet.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Human memory just isn't very reliable, and it certainly isn't as reliable as we *think* it is.