CharonY

Did that involve gators?

Two things. A) even if true, the positions is at least ostensibly non-partisan. Even if they have different leanings, they are not allowed to favour a particular party. By flat-out having a partisan tirade with veiled threats there may be grounds for call to recuse himself in cases involving democrats. To put it into job interview equivalents: he demonstrates that he does not know or care what the job entails. B) His tirade veers off into conspiracy theory land involving somehow revenge by the Clintons. I also have not seen Merrick's tirade about his killed candidacy, which was successfully destroyed by the Republicans, btw. So there is at least a precedence where people can handle things graciously. To be fair, though, if we disregard what triggered the hearings, the actual performance is what worries me more. While one could still discount the allegations (though his performance made it just a bit harder), the pervasive dishonesty in the characterization of his past, his belligerent manner (which apparently was noted by the bar association during his confirmation as federal judge), his inability to deal with stress and on top apparently inability to at least pretend to be of neutral disposition are worrisome in itself.

Good to have you back. Stay safe.

Also, don't forget the blatant partisanship in his prepared remarks.

I will remind you that this is board focuses on science (as the name subtly implies). If you want to speculate outside the realm of natural sciences, there are better places for that.

While not that common, there are quite a few species including mammals (platypus and slow loris come to mind) where intraspecific competition is at least assumed.

Sounds like homework. What is the difference between these two environments and what could react with iron under the respective conditions?

That is a fair point. I kind of assumed that somehow aides managed to convince Trump that this is "a blessing in disguise" as he put it. But then his overall restrained is actually quite out of character. I wonder what they did to convince him not to go full ballistic on Ford. In the end, it is at least equally possible that they think that the probes won't turn anything up or support their position. Or that there is indeed no grounds for criminal charges... But then who knows anything nowadays anymore.

I suspect that they were not certain of the remaining swing votes (Collins and Murkowski). IIRC both backed Flake's request. Especially as the false accusation rate is no higher than for other crimes (e.g. child abuse and homicide). In contrast, exoneration rate is higher for murder than for sexual assault. While an imperfect measure, it could indicate that unjustified conviction rates are higher for murder than for sexual assault (incl. rape). There is also the racial factor with black folks being about 7 times more likely to be sentenced innocently than white folks but "only" 3.5 times more likely than whites for sexual assaults. I.e. demographics could skew numbers a bit. A bit rambly, but if we believe that false allegations of rape or sexual assault are an issue that needs extra attention, then we should clearly also look into homicide (and drug possession).

And I assume that is why in interviews only proven testimonies are used as well as legal documents, right? Heck, depending on where you work and on which level, background checks do include the interview of character references by the FBI. And as Phi mentioned, in normal interviews your conduct will be closely monitored, especially under stress (heck, that is the whole shtick of assessment centres). Huh, things are changing fast, aren't they? I was somewhat surprised that they did not authorize looking into Swetnick as her allegations as well her affidavit seemed to be by far the weakest.

False accusations of crime can already lead to jailtime. Not sure why you would add no parole. Considering that folks conducting sexual assault do get parole. Also, what sentence would you give someone who made false accusations, but did not name anyone (which is the majority of false accusations)?

That still implies a teleological component. That is the correct context. It is adapted to a complex set of environmental conditions. Actually that is not that clear. There are two competing hypotheses, one which indeed states that a common origin of knuckle walking of the pan-homo group and gorillas. A second focuses more on the differences in types of knuckle walking and conclude that they arose independently and arose after the split. The former (formulated by Richmond and others ) has been around for longer (around 2000 ish), but the latter has gotten more traction due to some molecular data (though I am not familiar with the details).

Criticism, yes. Even public shaming to some degree. Death threats are a bit beyond that, I would say (just because it has not been mentioned before). While it is more than merely criticized, I take your point. Someone in that position should handle these situations better. I can't help but think that a woman in a similar situation crying while applying for a highly prestigious position would be seen as weak.

Oh I see. It is not clear what the main topic of the session was (for all we know it could be marital issues) and the assault could have been a minor point. Or maybe it was the main point, after all, the session have not been released (AFAIK). The big issue really is that SCOTUS positions have always been politicized as they are life-time appointments and currently in the US the positions are extremely polarized, especially as the republicans blocked Garland (an Obama nominee) and they already had Gorsuch. I suspect democrats are happy to kick a bit of a fuss but they do not have the voting power to actively block someone themselves. There is also the parallel to the confirmation of Clarence Thomas, where Anita Hill accused Thomas of sexual misconduct. The interview conducted by Dems and Reps is almost painful to watch. A comparison is made here.

Well, it is negatively both their lives, so clearly it is not one-sided. Also as Zapatos said, is it still unfair, if he actually did it?

As she and her husband were the patients, they can give consent to waive confidentiality. Who do you mean with "she"? After all, it is the senate asking the questions. As one of the lines was to figure out whether she was credible they rather pressed on aspects that they thought they could find contradictions (e.g. repeated question on lie detector tests, flights etc.). And note again this was not a fact-finding mission per se. That was not the timeline. Based on the affidavits her first direct naming of Kavanaugh was 2012 during couple therapy with her husband (which her husband said in an affidavit). The other affidavits indicated that she mentioned him as assaulter at different times between 2012 and 2018. I think you are under the misconception that in therapy it was the only mentioning of Kavanaugh as assaulter. According to her husband she mentioned to him that she was assaulted around the time when they got married (~2002) but did not name Kavanaugh (which is not unusual). She only did it while they were in the couple's therapy. That seems to be almost textbook behaviour. Often giving someone I am not sure what you mean with "not a name that I mentioned in 2012". Considering that was part of the therapy it would be precisely the time to give her assailant a name and to conquer her fears. But maybe I am not understanding you correctly.

There are reports that the FBI investigations are limited:

Also he was just asked whether he denies the accusations. If that is grilling I do not want to see when real pressure is applied.

Well he waffled on very easy questions. Heck he could have simply said that he partied too much as a youth, regrets it and is not that person any more. Attacking you interviewer is not holding up in my book. Meanwhile folks really did try to implicate Ford in lying and she calmly answered all questions. For someone familiar with courts he really seem to crack under pressure. And I am not sure that I would call it grilling. Well, unless you call repeating questions grilling when the interviewee dodges one.

Most research is supportive of the latter as a factor. i.e. mate selection. Often it is contrasted with erect chimp penis sizes, which are close to human sizes (genitalia display also plays a role). There is also the hypothesis that higher promiscuity could play a role.

Well, unless I am starting to imagining things it seems that after Flake's request a (max) one-week FBI inquiry will be started. It probably won't unearth a lot, but at least a few things might get checked off.

Well, I stand corrected then. Probably just early onset of senility on my part.

Really? I thought I read that all cast their vote with all Reps in favour and all Dems against.

Wasn't it 11-10 (i.e. party line?). However, Flake apparently requested a one week delay to allow FBI inquiries.

Perhaps more importantly, body development is highly interactive process. I.e. without any regular activity atrophy occurs, for example. Likewise, during child development inactivity can have negative influence on ligament, joint and muscle development etc. In other words, all states of an organism are dependent on their interactions with the environment and you cannot isolate one from the other.