Roberts was blocked to join the D.C. Appeals court twice in the Senate!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050719/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush

"It was Rehnquist who presided over the swearing-in ceremony when Roberts took his seat on the appeals court for the District of Columbia. It took a while for Roberts to get on the bench. He was nominated for the court in 1992 by the first President Bush and again by the president in 2001. The nominations died in the Senate both times. He was renominated in January 2003 and joined the court in June 2003."

Smells like trouble ... What was the confirmation vote?

Naral's old fact sheet on John Roberts included the statements below:

NARAL: REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM & CHOICE JUNE 2001
John G. Roberts, Jr.
Previously nominated by President George Bush to the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 1992.
Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, 1989-93.

"The Court was so accustomed to the Solicitor General and the Deputy Solicitor General arguing for the overturn of Roe that during John Roberts¡¦ oral argument before the Supreme Court in Bray, a Justice asked, ¡§Mr. Roberts, in this case are you asking that Roe v. Wade be overruled?¡¨ He responded, ¡§No, your honor, the issue doesn¡¦t even come up.¡¨ To this the justice said, ¡§Well that hasn¡¦t prevented the Solicitor General from taking that position in prior cases.¡¨Transcript of Oral Argument of John Roberts, Jr., dated Oct. 16, 1991, Bray v. Alexandria Women¡¦s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993) (No. 90-985).

As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court (in a case that did not implicate Roe v. Wade) that ¡§e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled¡K. he Court¡¦s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion¡K finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.¡¨Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) (Nos. 89-1391, 89-1392).
In Rust v. Sullivan -500 U.S. 173 (19917), the Supreme Court considered whether Department of Health and Human Services regulations limiting the ability of Title X recipients to engage in abortion-related activities violated various constitutional provisions. Roberts, appearing on behalf of HHS as Deputy Solicitor General, argued that this domestic gag rule did not violate constitutional protections.ƒnRoberts, again as Deputy Solicitor General, argued as amicus curiae for the United States supporting Operation Rescue and six other individuals who routinely blocked access to reproductive health care clinics, arguing that the
protesters¡¦ behavior did not amount to discrimination against women even though only women could exercise the right to seek an abortion. Intervening as amicus is a wholly discretionary decision on the part of the Solicitor General. Here the government chose to involve itself in a case in support of those who sought to deprive women of the right to choose. Roberts argued that the protesters¡¦ blockade and protests merely amounted to an expression of their opposition to abortion and that a civil rights remedy was therefore inappropriate.