Biden's desire to put a black woman on SCOTUS is yanking the evangelical hypocrites out of the closet

Tony Perkins thinks that Biden's decision to put a black woman on SCOTUS is wrong because the American public 'deserves a robust debate' on the nominee no matter who it may be. Too bad he didn't feel that way about Merrick Garland.

President Biden's decision to name a black woman to the Supreme Court is wonderful in so many ways. For one, it's about time a black woman is put on SCOTUS. The closest we got to receiving one is when former president Bill Clinton talked about naming former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan as a justice. Unfortunately her health problems kept that from happening.

Another benefit to Biden's decision is how it allows me to dig into my basket of receipts and call out the conservative and religious right hypocrites who are raising a fuss about it. These folks claim that Biden is sending a negative message of discrimination to those who aren't black women and message of pandering to black women.

Exhibit A of this outcry is from what's becoming my favorite anti-LGBTQ group to call out, the Family Research Council. It's president, Tony Perkins, claims that Biden's desire to name a black woman to SCOTUS is unfair, while pointing to a poll which says the majority of Americans disagree with Biden decision to name a black woman:

To most people, it didn't feel like a grand, equitable gesture. It felt like identity politics run amok. "Typical," Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) fumed, of an administration that's been "race-obsessed, gender-obsessed" from the beginning. And Americans seem to agree. In a brand new ABC poll over the weekend, 76 percent of Americans said they wanted Biden to consider "all possible nominees." Only 23 percent think he should limit the pool to black women. 

 Even the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus couldn't help but admit, "Would I be more comfortable if Biden hadn't been quite so explicit? Yes. Partly because it carries an aura of unfairness to announce that no one will be considered who does not meet an announced racial test," she wrote. Still, she insisted, the criticism over Biden's criteria seems "racially tinged." In other words, the Wall Street Journal's editors point out, "What she's really saying is that conservatives are right in their criticism but only liberals can say so... The Court and the public deserve a robust debate about the nominee, whether black, white, Asian, man, woman, whatever." 

Well that's interesting because it reminds me of another poll in 2016 concerning another potential SCOTUS justice - our present Attorney General, Merrick Garland:

The majority of Americans want the Senate to consider President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, according to a new poll. A CNN/ORC poll released Friday found that some two-thirds of Americans surveyed want the Senate to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland, who Obama nominated to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia. 

Most Republicans surveyed disagree with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who, along with other Senate GOP members, has said the Senate will not hold hearings for an Obama nominee. Some 55% of Republicans said the Senate should hold hearings, along with 67% of Democrats. A majority of those polled also said Obama should select the next justice (57%), but those views are divided by party with 85% of Democrats backing the president and only 26% of Republicans.

We all know how this story ended. Garland did not get a hearing and Trump - being elected after Obama  - chose Neil Gorsuch as his SCOTUS pick. The GOP-controlled Senate, led by Sen. McConnell, confirmed him.

But where was Perkins and the Family Research Council when Garland was being denied a hearing?  They were cheering on efforts to deny the hearing. FRC even sent out a press release echoing McConnell's excuse for not holding a hearing and attacking Garland as being too radical:

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement: 

 "Judge Garland is far from being a consensus nominee and would be an incredibly different jurist than Justice Scalia. In fact, he was opposed by almost a quarter of the Senators who voted on his nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court in 1997, and some of Judge Garland’s most recent opinions and dissents raises serious questions about his ability to serve as a constitutionalist. 

 "During this presidential election year, there is not time to provide any nominee the thorough review necessary to adequately consider a person’s appointment to the Supreme Court. In fact, it has been almost a century and a half since a Supreme Court vacancy occurred and was filled in an election year when the White House and Senate were controlled by different parties. 

"This November, Americans will speak to who they want nominating the next Justice for the United States Supreme Court. The American people should have a say, and the Senate should respect Americans' desire to speak to this important issue by declining to schedule hearings and votes on a Supreme Court nominee this year.

It's obvious that Perkins and FRC think of the America public in the same way as the GOP - not mattering until their opinions can be distorted and exploited.