You’re right – it’s not evidence that would stand up in, ahem, court. 🙂

Here’s another take on the issue: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2015/06/is-scalia-a-cre.html

I guess we’re never going to find out either way now.

So oppose it, don’t excuse it, though it seems the Reps must do it smarter, given they hold the House with a minority of the total popular vote.

So say a bunch of Republicans. If you want to find Dems acting badly, the 2016 primary games that favoured Clinton had way more impact that all this put together.

He was Catholic, but a very conservative one. He made a speech not long before he died that referred to his YEC beliefs: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/06/scalia-commencement-speech-supports-young-earth-creationism/

Yes Heather, I’d second that.
I thought he was a Catholic, hence not a Young Earth creationist. Are you sure?
Sadly (if so) it didn’t disqualify him from being a SC judge.

I don’t see what was so good about Scalia either. He believed in young-earth creationism FFS! I’m not saying he was a bad judge, but there’s also no doubt he let his religious beliefs influence his decisions which disqualifies him from being called “great” imo.

Of course you’re right, but it still won’t happen. It might have happened once upon a time in the GOP, but for almost eight years now their only consistent policy has been to oppose Obama no matter what and this is the result. They won’t admit any mistake, honest or otherwise, and no-one would believe them. They’ve made cooperation and compromise dirty words. Garland would be a good choice as far as I can tell too and he’s largely non-partisan. I think that’s one of the reasons Obama nominated him – there are no real reasons for the GOP not to approve him and because they haven’t they have exposed their hypocrisy.

I’ve heard several people say that about Obama, and I agree, but like you that’s another one I can’t see happening. 🙂

In other words, compared to, say, Scalia, d’Alito, Sotomayor or Thomas (note, I have great respect for the latter two) Garland would be a giant (IMMO). I never understood why Scalia was so highly regarded.

I guess you are more or less right,
However, didn’t they lose face already by not really endorsing Trump? (say eg. Ryan explaining that he is a textbook example of a racist, but still supporting?). I mean, they already have so much egg on their face, a little bit of extra yolk would not really hurt. They could (e.g..) easily say that after a “thorough study of precedents” they came to the conclusion that ‘last year’ nominations are done after all (MC just made an honest mistake), or something -nothing to do with a probable loss in November of course. If I were a Republican I still would try. (but then, there ‘s reasons I’m not a US republican :))
And then, Rep or Dem , Garland would be such an outstanding, excellent choice. I can’t think of anybody more deserving (well I have to admit here I do not know that many US justices records, there may possibly be others equally deserving I do not know of).

[And on a more frivolous note, despite having (as far as I know) no experience as a Judge, I think Obama himself -he is a trained lawyer and a law teacher after all- would not be a bad choice as a SC justice either 😛 ]