First Tweet

[dik]

I sent my first tweet this evening:

Dik Coates‏ @CoatesDik 14m14 minutes ago

@SenFeinstein Can you have Michael Avenatti cross examine Kavanaugh?

Dik

 

[Latexman]

That kool-aid must have blind you. If a prospective engineer exhibited his attitude, partisanship, demeanour, body language, lack of candor, etc. in any situation prior to being hired, I'd find someone else. Basically he said, we have the numbers, screw the Democrats. That's just not my idea of a SCOTUS judge. That's not my idea of how one treats a congressperson, especially in public. Was he under stress. Yes. He failed the stress test in my opinion. I foresee downstream problems if confirmed.

Good luck,
Latexman

To a ChE, the glass is always full - 1/2 air and 1/2 water.

 

[bridgebuster]

Eisenhower said something similar about being a manager, along the lines of ...if you can pretend you care about people, you've got it made.

 

[hokie66]

I hope some of you listened to Senator Collins's great speech. It illustrates how Senators are supposed to evaluate nominations, as opposed to the kneejerk decisions to oppose even before consideration. Her decision to confirm Judge Kavanaugh will not help her politically, but she made it because in her opinion it is the right decision for the country.

There are a few Democrat Senators who will regret their no votes come election time.

 

[dik]

I foresee downstream problems if confirmed

Concur... some real serious ones... the Donald has created a judge in his own image. If confirmed, the US is heading for the 'Dark Ages'... and, not a racial comment (I'm not sure).

Dik

 

[dik]

if you can pretend you care about people, you've got it made

He was only a president... we are talking about a Supreme Court justice. Big difference.

Dik

 

[hokie66]

Just wondering, dik, on what you base your opinions. Did you read the Bar Association report? Did you read the FBI background reports? Did you listen to the people who introduced the judge, including the avowed liberal Democrat lawyer who has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other woman? And did you listen to Senator Collins? Do you realize that the duty of the Senate in confirming is to verify the competence and character of a judge and that he/she fits within the mainstream of the law? Senator Collins pointed out that Judge Kavanaugh and Judge Merrick Garlsnd, who have been on the same court together for all of Kavanaugh's time on the Circuit, have almost always agreed. Perhaps Judge Garland was treated unfairly after President Obama nominated him, but that is water under the bridge.

 

[JohnRBaker]

A

for Latexman.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[dik]

Hokie:

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/29/the-unbearable-dishonesty-of-brett-kavanaugh/

and maybe a couple of dozen articles... not just related to his sexual and drinking antics, it appears that he has perjured himself before other senate hearings. His outright lies about his drinking is only indicative of his inability to tell the truth... he, and the president are 'cut from the same cloth', and seriously adds credence to his sexual antics. In addition, his partisan position and outburst at his questioning and his refusal to answer questions posed to him, show he's not suitable for the position. He will likely be confirmed by Republicans who put their party ahead of the country.

I have no confidence in his honesty, integrity, or judgements. The bar associations should be responsible for nominating judges, not the senate... they cannot be trusted either.

I'm speaking as an outsider and not an American... I suspect the US is in for a long term 'pile of hurt'.

Dik

 

[hokie66]

You need to read from different sources if you are going to depend on the internet.

Drinking, how did he perjure himself? He said he drank beer, sometimes too much. Did he black out, no, he said he went to sleep. All of the FBI background checks address problems with alcohol and drugs, and he was found to have no issues.

"Sexual antics" is just innuendo. I think Alan Dershowitz characterized these allegations best as "sexual McCarthyism".

I certainly agree that these hearing were much too partisan, and the institution of the Senate has been sullied. The motive of Senators who voted either way is for them to decide and voters in their states to ultimately rule on their performance.

Neither the Senate or the Bar Association nominates Supreme Court Justices and other Federal Judges. The President appoints, with the advise and consent of the Senate. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

I have every confidence in Kavanaugh's honesty, integrity, and judgment. And I am a US citizen and voter.

 

[zdas04]

Latexman,
Really?

If a prospective engineer exhibited his attitude, partisanship, demeanour, body language, lack of candor, etc. in any situation prior to being hired, I'd find someone else.

Have you ever subjected a prospective engineer to 60 hours of interviews? 7 FBI background checks? Hate Filled crap spewed at him for hours at a time? Subjected to death threats against him and his wife and children? Try it some time. Probably at hour 2, the prospective engineer would deck someone and say that no job is worth this crap. I thought that his attitude, demeanour (sic), body language, and candor were beyond reproach--far far better than any of the Democrat Senators on the panel (and I watched every minute of the hearings).

As to his "partisanship", the ONLY partisan attitude that he exhibited during the entire hearing was a strong bias for the Constitution--exactly what I want in a Justice.

A couple of people have mentioned his "LIES" and "Perjury", even including links to the "Huffington Post" and "The Intercept". I read both of those articles very closely. For those of you with a weaker stomach than I have here is an example of "the biggest lie"

... in an change (sic) with Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., the nominee claimed, “The witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen.”

But, apart from Kavanaugh, who denied the allegations, none of the named witnesses said the allegations didn’t happen. Rather, they stated that they did not recall the house party, or have personal knowledge of the alleged sexual assault.

Now that is such a huge lie that it should be disqualifying, right? Read it. You have four named "witnesses" who have no recollection of either the party or someone vanishing from it or any sexual misconduct. Is it a lie to describe a denial of the event to "it didn't happen"? I don't think so. All of the "lies" were more word choice and semantics than Bill Clinton's "I never had sex with that woman" in the face of DNA evidence. There is NO evidence here. None. There are holes in Dr. Ford's story you could drive a truck through. Why won't the people who prepared the protests simply evaluate him on his merits? They were never going to give him a chance

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[IRstuff]

"They were never going to give him a chance"

At least he got a hearing, unlike Garland.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[hokie66]

I do think that the failure to consider the nomination of Judge Garland has contributed to the very bitter divide in the Senate today. But that was not of Judge Kavanaugh's doing. Judge Garland is still the Chief Judge of the nation's second highest court, and is only 65 years old. If he were nominated to the next vacancy in the Supreme Court, that might go a long way to healing the wounds.

 

[zdas04]

hokie66,
That would actually be a brilliant move.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[dik]

You need to read from different sources if you are going to depend on the internet.

I do... even for news I generally check the BBC, Guardian, der Spiegel, Reuters, CBC and CTVNews each morning.

Dik

 

[dik]

Have you ever subjected a prospective engineer to 60 hours of interviews?

No, but, I have testified in court for 3 days running...

Dik

 

[bridgebuster]

Character assassination, hypocrisy, controversial judges; nothing new in American political history. Lincoln said "I want judges who decide law not principles." That's what the framers of the Constitution intended. However, both parties,much more so on the Left, use the courts to do their dirty work on controversial matters - gun control, abortion, political contributions, gay marriage, etc. They're afraid to enact laws because of the reaction of the voters so they punt and let the courts settle things. This way both sides can wash their hands.

As I said the Kavanaugh hearing is a disgrace. If Feinstein had integrity she would have revealed the allegations in July rather than waiting for "gotcha" moment. It's obvious what she was trying to do. Then after the Collins speech "Crying Chuck Shumer" showed himself for the hypocrite that is. First asking Trump to withdraw the Kavanaugh nomination and then saying that not only would he consider a conservative nominee but promised to give the nominee a fair shake. Why is the Left so afraid of Kavanaugh? He's one man; he can't destroy the republic. Obama tried hard for 8 years to destroy the country and it didn't work.

We'll see the repercussions on November 6th. While it's been a disgrace; I think in other ways it's been good for the country. As Clemenza said to Michael Corleone "These things gotta happen every five years or so, ten years. Helps to get rid of the bad blood."

 

[IRstuff]

"much more so on the Left, use the courts to do their dirty work on controversial matters - gun control, abortion"

The 7-2 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade included 5 Republican nominated justices in majority. There were only 3 "liberal" justices on the court, and one of them dissented. Perhaps they actually were following the law and the Constitution and considered that the Government, aside from theocratic considerations, did not have the right to interfere with a person's body until the fetus is viable.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[bridgebuster]

@IRstuff: I was speaking in general how elected leaders shirk their responsibilities on "third rail" issues and was not referring to any specific case. Whether Roe v Wade was decided correctly or incorrectly - as some on across the ideological spectrum believe - is a matter for legal scholars. However, courts aren't infallible, as in Plessey v Ferguson. Although Dred Scott is a moot point, was it decided correctly?

 

[dik]

BB and IRS: I'm fully in favour of the FIJA, and, think it has a real purpose.

Dik

 

[IRstuff]

"Correctly" is completely in the eye of the beholder, that's why we wound up with 9 justices. "Natural law" and "strict construction" and "originalist" are but a few of the philosophies that various justices have been queried on during confirmation. Thomas is the lone originalist, wherein he does not allow interpretation of the Constitution beyond what the writers might have considered. I think that's an absurd viewpoint, but he got confirmed 52-48, and is often on a separate tangent, whether he's agreeing or dissenting. So, if the court were stuff with 9 clones of Thomas, the decisions would be radically different than what the court eventually decided.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm