That's It, Chuck? You're Kidding!

So Chuck Schumer, whom Paul at Powerline correctly calls irrelevant to the Supreme Court nomination process, tells us what he needs to support a nominee. No, it's not envelopes stuffed with money, it's:

At the hearing itself, senators should ask - and the nominee should answer - questions about the candidate's views about constitutional interpretation, about decided cases and about what rights he or she believes are protected in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the ultimate guardian of our most precious rights, and appointments to that court are for a lifetime. So long as the nominee is not asked to prejudge a specific case, it is incumbent on us to ask about a nominee's views of the First Amendment, civil rights, environmental rights, religious liberty, the rights of working people and other fundamental issues. Otherwise, how are the American people to know whether the nominee can be trusted to protect those rights?

Let's see ... that's First Amendment, civil rights, environmental "rights" (that's a new one; where exactly are those rights spelled out?), religious liberty, rights of working people, and "other."

Wassamatta, Chuck, are you afraid to say what it's really all about to you and the others who run their re-election campaigns with Planned Parenthood and NARAL dollars? Are you really so afraid to say the word "abortion?" And here I thought you were telling me it's "mainstream" to be pro-abortion.