Why Do They Even Pretend?

First, new ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Jeff Sessions said he would be open to a gay nominee for the Supreme Court. And that same day, Sessions asserted that he'd be open to a pro-choice nominee as well:

In an appearance on Fox News, the Alabama Republican said he did not "believe in a litmus test," and was comfortable with a judge who had "a different view on abortion than I have." Such a judge, he added, could "still receive my vote."

Asked, specifically, if a pro-choice nominee would could potentially get his backing once he or she was brought to the committee, Sessions replied: "yes"

Unfortunately for the reality-based community, when he said these things, it seems that it coincidentally happened to be Opposite Day in the Senate Republican Caucus.

Because two days later, he said that a possible SCOTUS candidate's gayness would be a really big concern, and that some people (i.e., Jeff Sessions) would not be okay with it. And today, the New York Times' Charlie Savage reports that:

WASHINGTON — If President Obama nominates Judge Diane P. Wood to the Supreme Court, conservatives plan to attack her as an “outspoken” supporter of “abortion, including partial-birth abortion.”

If he nominates Judge Sonia Sotomayor, they plan to accuse her of trying to “expand constitutional rights beyond the text of the Constitution.”

And if he nominates Kathleen M. Sullivan, a law professor at Stanford [and a lesbian], they plan to decry her as a "prominent supporter of homosexual marriage."

So Jeff Sessions is perfectly fine with a pro-choice gay SCOTUS justice. Except not one that rules in favor of gay rights or a woman's right to choose.

Why don't Republicans on the Judiciary Committee just write an Op-Ed in the Washington Post titled "GTFO Baby Killin' Faggots!" and be done with it?