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.