Analysis: Claims SCOTUS Conservatives Promised To Uphold 'Roe' Are Simply Not True

Analysis: Claims SCOTUS Conservatives Promised To Uphold 'Roe' Are Simply Not True

Several Democrats and their talking head allies in the media are claiming that two U.S. Supreme Court justices who agreed to overturn Roe v. Wade “lied” during their confirmation hearings.

But those lawmakers and pundits who are making the allegation that justices lied under oath are actually the ones who are misleading Americans, according to a Fox News analysis.

Constitutionalist justices have been under assault by the left since the nation’s highest court overturned ‘Roe’ on Friday, effectively returning the issue to states for them to decide — which was where the issue resided from the earliest days of the republic until 1973, when a SCOTUS majority claimed the nation’s founding document somehow guaranteed a ‘right’ to abortion.

Following the ruling, the left-wing media has pushed the talking point that has also been echoed by pro-abortion Democrats that justices ‘lied’ during their confirmation hearings when they were asked about ‘Roe.’

After citing several examples, Fox News noted:

Some members of the media, including late night comedian Stephen Colbert and MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner, who took it a step further when they floated the idea that the justices should be investigated and possibly impeached for perjury. 

L.A. Times columnist Jackie Calmes penned a piece titled, “Brett Kavanaugh’s Roe vote proved it again — he has a truth problem,” which refers to the Trump-appointed justice as a “serial liar.” 

“The Times piece focused on claims made by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who suggested Kavanaugh misled her on the abortion issue in testimony and in private meetings, not when he was under oath during his confirmation hearing,” the analysis continued.

Calmes cited notes published by The New York Times indicating that Kavanaugh expressed respect for precedent when he was asked about ‘Roe’ but that he never made any concrete pledges not to overturn it. Nevertheless, Calmes went ahead and wrote that “liars end up on the nation’s highest court, for life, to determine how the rest of us live our lives.”

The Arizona Republic published an opinion piece, “A liar’s guide for getting appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court,” that declared “whenever you decide to be evasive, cagey, vague, prevaricating or shifty you are, essentially, lying.”

Fox News then listed several more media examples that labeled Kavanaugh and some other conservative justices on the court as “liars” before going on to show how they really never lied at all.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, said, “Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it’s been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged on a number of occasions… and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decisions… I think that when a decision is challenged, and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch was also asked about ‘Roe’ during his confirmation hearings but he never promised not to overturn it.

“I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed…. A good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other,” Gorsuch said during his confirmation hearing.

And Justice Amy Coney Barrett declared, “Roe is not a super precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased, but that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled.”

In 1991, Justice Clarence Thomas would not offer his public opinion on ‘Roe’, explaining that he didn’t want to taint any ability to rule on the case at any point in the future.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board also pushed back the claim in a column, “The Justices Didn’t Lie to the Senate,” explaining that none of the conservative justices promised to uphold Roe v. Wade.

“The claims of deceit are especially unfortunate because they suggest that the Court is no different from the political branches. This is damaging to the Court’s credibility, whether the majority leans to the left or the right. The current majority won’t last forever, perhaps not even many more years, and Democrats deriding the current Court as political won’t be pleased if Republicans make the same claim when their appointees are back in the majority,” the editorial board wrote.


Join the Newsletter