For the first time since POLITICO published a leaked draft of a Supreme Court majority opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, the congressional body that conducts the justices’ confirmation hearings had an opportunity to debate the matter Thursday.

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee blasted the opinion, which is not final and still could change. Republicans defended the conservative justices who may be poised to strike down the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion in the United States while condemning the leak.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the panel’s chairman, accused “at least four” justices appointed by Republican presidents of giving the committee misleading answers when asked during their confirmation hearings about whether Roe v. Wade fell under the legal doctrine known as stare decisis that precedents should not be overturned without strong reason.

The committee, Durbin said “took the nominees at their word, at least four Republican appointees who currently sit on the Supreme Court and appeared as nominees before this committee and claimed they would respect the court's nearly 50-year precedent on a woman's right to choose and treat it as settled law.”

“They assured us they would not be activist judges,” the Illinois Democrat continued. “They portrayed themselves as neutral umpires driven not by policy objective, but by a desire to call balls and strikes, to adhere to precedent, to simply apply the law to the facts. This draft opinion tells a much different story.”

Durbin’s criticism started with Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the leaked opinion. The chairman noted that during Alito’s 2006 confirmation hearings, he told Durbin that Roe v. Wade met the criteria for “respect under the doctrine of stare decisis.”

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, defended Alito, saying there was “nothing in his answers that proved untruthful.”

“I think it's unfortunate to denigrate the character and truthfulness of one of the most honest, decent human beings ever to serve in the federal judiciary and on the Supreme Court of the United States,” Lee said.

“Roe v. Wade has been around for 48 years, nearly my entire life,” the Utah Republican added. “I don’t like it. I don't like it as a matter of policy, but more importantly, I find it repugnant as a matter of constitutional interpretation. It is wrong.  And the opinion that's been leaked of Justice Alito is correct.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the committee’s top-ranking Republican, stood up for all the justices who reportedly voted with Alito: Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas. 

“I've heard people say that that these candidates lied to us,” Grassley said. “I don't know what you do when you question Supreme Court justices, but I'm looking at, are they for the original intent of the Constitution?”

Lee, Grassley and other Republicans argued that stare decisis has limits and it’s unreasonable to suggest precedent can never be overturned.

“It's ridiculous to think that we would say today that separate but equal is a legitimate way to treat people in public schools,” Grassley said. “No Brown (v. Board of Education) overruled that, and everybody's thankful that Brown overruled it.”

Democrats said the leaked opinion was the result of Republicans’ yearslong efforts to appoint activist judges on the court. 

“If this draft opinion becomes the court's majority opinion, these nominees will have shown again what we said for years about certain appointees to the bench: They are in fact judicial activists,” Durbin said. “They are driven by desired policy outcomes and beholden to an ideological agenda.

“These justices were put on the bench by President (Donald) Trump and Sen. (Mitch) McConnell to deliver this outcome,” Durbin added. “President Trump said as much when he promised he would appoint justices who would, in his words, ‘automatically overturn Roe.’ And Sen. McConnell probably held open a vacant seat on the court for 10 months (in 2016) to achieve this outcome.”

Added Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., added: “What I worry about is when you have groups to tell a president who he must appoint because they are convinced that they will vote a certain way, that undermines the integrity of the Supreme Court.”

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said Democrats were using a double standard in their criticism of conservative-leaning justices.

“I find it interesting that Democrat senators on this committee are astonished the justices would vote to overturn Roe,” he said. “They’re not astonished that every Democrat-appointed justice votes to continue Roe.

“In my judgment, that (draft) opinion is a masterful opinion,” Cruz also said. “It is correct. Roe v. Wade was wrong the day it was decided, and it's been wrong every day since then.”

Republicans also focused on the leak itself, with Grassley calling it “a monumental historic breach of trust.” Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday he’s ordered the Supreme Court marshal to launch an investigation into the leak.

“I don't know why some on the left want to lionize the leaker,” Grassley said. “This was a very dishonorable act. We should all be willing to say that.

“This seems to be nothing more than an appalling attempt to intimidate the justices.” 

GOP members said the leak is also leading to threats against justices. One liberal group published the addresses of conservative justices on its website and is planning walk-by protests next week, although it says the demonstrations will be peaceful.

Lee, however, said he doesn’t see it that way.

“You go to the home of a public official to protest, that is an implicit threat,” he said. “You show up where someone sleeps and raises children, that's an implicit threat of physical violence. We deserve better than this.”

Durbin agreed, saying, “There is no room for mob action, intimidation or any personal threats against a public official.”

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he and Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., introduced legislation Wednesday night that would enhance the protection of justices by providing protective details by law enforcement for them and their family members who have been threatened.