David Sorensen

[David Sorensen @Neuro_DOS]

@EvidenceProf I guess if "87 percent" is the only part of that statement that they hear, sure.

[David Sorensen @Neuro_DOS]

@GsuGrinding To be fair, the prosecutor's statement quoted in the blog post was actually disclaiming putting an 87% (or any other arbitrary percentage) on it. We're humans, so we don't calculate numerical probabilities.

[David Sorensen @Neuro_DOS]

@dilanesper @nikkidadlani Could you explain what is the unreasonable application of federal law by the FL Supreme Court, then? I agree CA11 messed up considering post-trial evidence, but SCOTUS really reversed just for that issue without highlighting any other problems with their analysis.

[David Sorensen @Neuro_DOS]

@TradVat2 The court refers to them throughout as non-party movants. Not amici, but non-party movants. She asks the parties to respond to that motion and gives the judges the chance to reply. Seems like a grant in all but name.

[David Sorensen @Neuro_DOS]

@dotdotslashstar If that's the image of the document in question, seems to me it is compliant? It's underlined and indented, thus making it stand out distinctly from the rest of the document. Seems to comply with the definition cited in the opinion.

[David Sorensen @Neuro_DOS]

@KantJoseph52803 @WakeUp2Politics @dilanesper Which Martin-Quinn publish, making this binary classification a baffling choice (especially when the median justice data show the same point that the court has been consistently on the conservative side of 0).

[David Sorensen @Neuro_DOS]

@EricaSWiley @shipwreckedcrew No, especially since the election referred to in VA constitution is a state election that takes place in odd years (while federal elections happen in even years). So it's not even a state election that coincides with a federal election.

[David Sorensen @Neuro_DOS]

@ReasonPete @Fritschner What's justiciable for the federal courts may very well be different than what is justiciable for state courts--and the arguments advanced by a dissent may be persuasive reasons for why the state court should be different.

[David Sorensen @Neuro_DOS]

@jkimballcook @NoblestCalling I would say intentional at least in the sense that, once people have rejected his appointed servants, God chooses to withdraw his authority for a time rather than endlessly continuing a string of prophet-martyrs.

[David Sorensen @Neuro_DOS]

@KnowMySongWell @shipwreckedcrew Seeing as they are the ones who publish the Ump Manual, sure.

Plus, reading "on" as the preposition for balls making contact with the ground and "over" for balls in the air is reasonable and entirely consistent with the text.

[David Sorensen @Neuro_DOS]

@dead_baseball My reading is "on" refers to balls touching the ground, whereas "over" refers to balls in the air. Balls can't settle in the air, so the settled ball rule only uses on. A fielder can contact a ball on the ground or in the air, so "on or over," etc.

[David Sorensen @Neuro_DOS]

@PopePiusXIIStan Was it wrong/sinful for Gentiles in Jesus's time to eat pork? Or was it only wrong for Jews because of their covenant relationship with God?

[David Sorensen @Neuro_DOS]

@legalstyleblog This isn't a "magic words" thing. Consent to search and consent to answer questions are different things, and you can choose to do one and not the other.

[David Sorensen @Neuro_DOS]

@dilanesper Much like how almost everyone on the current court does when Jackson brings up legislative history. Sotomayor and Kagan don't always bail on those sections, but I seem to remember times they have.

[David Sorensen @Neuro_DOS]

@CaseyMattox_ Buck v Bell hasn't been formally overturned, but it's in a worse place than Lemon was before Kennedy. That makes Kelo the easy choice, despite Buck having an argument for being worse in a vacuum.

[David Sorensen @Neuro_DOS]

@LetGoMet @MindProbe @Frank_Frangie Which goes against all the "pitches don't move that much between the plate and the catcher!" talk I see frequently when people bring up the rulebook zone.

[David Sorensen @Neuro_DOS]

@MindProbe @LetGoMet @Frank_Frangie Per the article I've seen, they can--but they've chosen not to. The claim is that it led to too many pitches clipping the zone that would have been viewed as balls in the past.

[David Sorensen @Neuro_DOS]

@tangotiger So the Official Baseball Rules for 2026 will include the new, ABS definition of the strike zone?

[David Sorensen @Neuro_DOS]

@tangotiger Down a bit further, they explain that they won't bring you all the wings right from the get go if your group size indicates you likely won't eat them all (but that you are still welcome to get additional up to your age within the 90 min time limit).