Is it possible that I've been wrong about Senator Schumer?
Like most conservatives who were disturbed by his dogged efforts
and filibuster against the judicial nomination of Miguel Estrada,
I was under the impression that the senator was opposed to
pro-life nominees in general and conservatives in particular.
However, Mr. Schumer has placed in nomination for the federal
bench Eric Vitaliano, who was one of only two pro-life elected
Democrats on Staten Island - the other being Elizabeth Connelly.
In addition, Judge Vitaliano, a former assemblyman, sponsored the
bill that led to the state's ban on partial-birth abortion in
1996 and had strong ties with the New York State Catholic
Conference. Had he represented my district on the North Shore, I
would have had no problem casting my vote for him during his
eight terms in the Assembly. In addition to being pro-life, he is
pro-death penalty, two stances hardly representative of his
party's platform.
When Mr. Schumer nominated Judge Vitaliano, he issued the
following statement: "Judge Vitaliano has had a
distinguished career as a lawyer, public servant, and judge. I
have no doubt that, if he is elevated to the federal bench, he
will continue to be an outstanding jurist, committed to
interpreting law, not making law. He is a true moderate who will
serve the court honorably and handle cases fairly. Vitaliano has
a stellar record in both the public and private sectors, and a
sterling reputation."
How ironic that Mr. Schumer should consider Judge Vitaliano a
moderate. Has any pro-lifer ever been considered anything but
extremist by Democrats?
I'm having difficulty pigeonholing Mr. Schumer on this abortion
issue because during his attack against Mr. Estrada, the senator
accused him of being out of the mainstream. What was the basis
for that remark unless Mr. Schumer was assuming Mr. Estrada was
pro-life because he is a Catholic? Does Mr. Schumer think
mainstream is pro-choice? Then why Judge Vitaliano?
Many conservatives have accused Mr. Schumer of being
anti-Catholic. The leader of the Conservative Party, Michael
Long, contends that Mr. Schumer has demonstrated a bias against
judicial candidates with deeply held Roman Catholic beliefs
against abortion and gay rights. "He's not a bigot but he is
biased," Mr. Long said.
Perhaps, Mr. Schumer reserves his opposition for nominees to
high-level appeals courts that might be considered stepping
stones to the Supreme Court, where Roe v. Wade hangs in the
balance. Judge Vitaliano has been nominated to the New York State
Supreme Court, and his sponsorship by Mr. Schumer might be an
effort to dispel charges of anti-Catholic bias.He may even - gasp
- be sincere in nominating Judge Vitaliano because he's just a
fine candidate.
Perhaps it's unwise to compare the similarities in the faith of
Judge Vitaliano and Mr. Estrada. Instead, we should consider
their ethnicity - one is Italian and the other a conservative
Hispanic. Judge Vitaliano's nomination is unlikely to generate
any controversy while the appointment to the Court of Appeals of
Mr. Estrada, a member of the nation's largest minority, would
have been politically significant for the Republicans. Although
studies showed that more than 87% of Hispanics approved of Mr.
Estrada for the Court of Appeals, his subsequent withdrawal from
the grueling process did not translate into a rejection of Mr.
Schumer who handily won re-election last year. His victory,
however, was preordained by a complicit state GOP leadership,
which once again ran a sacrificial lamb against the incumbent.
Clearly Mr. Schumer is either a genuine enigma or an individual
manipulated by special interests with in his party. Mr. Bush's
nominees to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have
been monitored carefully by these special interests, who are
actively attempting to influence those on the judicial committee.
As I've written in a previous column, memos from these groups to
Senators Schumer, Kennedy, Leahy, and others were uncovered last
year detailing how to derail the nominations of conservatives.
In "Men in Black," author Mark Levin lists the shocking
memos in detail. He terms them "court tampering, plain and
simple." One, addressed to Senator Durbin of Illinois,
discussed a strategy session meeting with Mr. Kennedy and certain
civil rights groups. It read, "They also identified Miguel
Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a
minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to
be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment."
Mr. Estrada was considered dangerous because he is Hispanic, and
thus Mr. Schumer was unleashed. Judge Vitaliano is safe because
he is not Hispanic, so Mr. Schumer gets to nominate a good man
for the job. I'm beginning to see Mr. Schumer more clearly. He's
neither anti-Catholic nor is he against pro-lifers. He's just a
good old partisan Democrat.