Sorry. That was my punchdrunk reaction to this:

“In July, following the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme
Court, I stated clearly that I wanted to hear a clear indication that
Judge Roberts accepts Roe v. Wade as the law of the land. After days of
testimony and intense questioning at the Senate Judiciary Committee
hearings, Americans have had a glimpse into the thinking of Judge
Roberts.
“While I am impressed with the deep intellect and understanding of the
law that Judge Roberts has shown and believe him to be a man of
integrity, I am unconvinced that Judge Roberts accepts the landmark Roe
v. Wade ruling as settled law. What I was waiting for, as were many
Americans, was a clear affirmation that the life-altering decision as to
whether or not to have a child must be a woman’s decision.
Unfortunately, Judge Roberts’ response did not indicate a commitment to
protect a woman’s right to choose.
“At the hearings, Judge Roberts spoke with clarity and, of course,
correctly, that he agreed with the 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of
Education. And this most important decision,e evil practice of segregation, is now considered settled law.
What I was hoping to hear was the same simple affirmation of Roe v. Wade, a decision which has had a long-lasting, profound impact in improving women’s health and lives. There can be no turning back and for that reason I oppose the nomination of Judge Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.”