The reaction to the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health has been predictably vitriolic and often full of distortions. The Justices didn’t ban abortion; they said there is no constitutional right to abortion and left it to the states to decide. The majority also did not set up other rights to disappear; they explicitly said abortion is unique.

Perhaps the most unfortunate claim is that the Justices in the Dobbs majority lied during confirmation hearings. The charge is that they suggested that Roe v. Wade was a precedent that couldn’t be overturned. Coaxed on the point on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Rep.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

said this is grounds for impeachment, and don’t be surprised if other Democrats pick up that cudgel.

Sens.

Susan Collins

and

Joe Manchin

said Friday they feel Justices

Brett Kavanaugh

and

Neil Gorsuch

deceived them on the precedent point in testimony and in their private meetings with the Justices. We weren’t in those meetings, but we’d be stunned if either Justice came close to making a pledge about Roe.

The reason is that the first rule of judging is that you can’t pre-judge a case. Judges are limited under Article III of the Constitution to hearing cases and controversies, and that means ruling on facts and law that are specific to those cases.

No judge can know what those facts might be in advance of a case, and judges owe it to the parties to consider those facts impartially. A judge who can’t be impartial, or who has already reached a conclusion or has a bias about a case, is obliged to recuse himself. This is judicial ethics 101.

An authority on this point is no less than the late progressive Justice

Ruth Bader Ginsburg,

as she explained in 1993. “It would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide,” she said. “A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

Every Supreme Court nominee since has followed that Ginsburg guidance. Judge

Ketanji Brown Jackson,

who will soon join the Court, hewed to it on every question she was asked about precedent. Our guess is that she’d vote to overturn all of last week’s rulings on religious liberty, guns and abortion if she gets the chance. But that doesn’t mean she lied to the Senate.

The same goes for the confirmation record of the conservative Justices. Here’s Justice Gorsuch: “Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. . . . So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

He added that “If I were to start telling you which are my favorite precedents or which are my least favorite precedents, or if I viewed precedent in that fashion, I would be tipping my hand and suggesting to litigants that I have already made up my mind about their cases.”

And here’s Justice Kavanaugh: “Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed many times. It was reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. . . . So that precedent on precedent is quite important as you think about stare decisis in this context.” He made no specific pledge about either case that we have seen. Justice

Amy Coney Barrett

expressly rejected the idea that Roe was a super precedent.

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 fury of the left’s reaction isn’t merely about guns and abortion. It reflects their grief at having lost the Court as the vehicle for achieving policy goals they can’t get through legislatures. The cultural victories they achieved by judicial fiat will now have to be won by persuading voters. We understand their frustration, but they ought to try democracy for a change. They might even win the debate over abortion.

Journal Editorial Report: The Supreme Court’s decision will super-charge our politics. Images: AP/Getty Images Composite: Mark Kelly
Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8