Before the end of this month, the Supreme Court will hand down its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and, the Left tells us, thereby end abortion in the United States.

The High Court’s decision will do nothing of the sort, of course, but those on the Left are doing everything they can to maintain our murderous status quo; everything, that is, except respecting the Rule of Law. Nothing is off the table for these pro-abortion fanatics — not open threats from elected officials, not assassination attempts, not media skullduggery.

Since the leak, Senate Democrats have taken to claiming that the three justices appointed by Donald Trump lied to them during their confirmation hearings about their beliefs regarding Roe. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York is leading the charge, accusing them of concealing their true intentions from the Senate Judiciary Committee so they could then carry out their nefarious plan to uphold the Constitution rather than scrape and bow before the whims of the Left.

So, for the record, here’s a sample of how Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett handled Democrat attempts to get them to agree to leave Roe alone during their respective confirmation hearings.

Connecticut Senator and Vietnam war fantasist Richard Blumenthal asked Gorsuch if he agreed with the Roe decision. Gorsuch replied: “I understand that every citizen and every member of the Senate have their precedents that they prefer personally and not. I understand that. I respect that. That is part of the process and our First Amendment liberties. But as a judge, my job is to decide cases as they come to me. And for a judge to start tipping his or her hand about whether they like or dislike this or that precedent would send the wrong signal. It would send the signal to the American people that the judge’s personal views have something to do with the judge’s job.”

California Senator Dianne Feinstein, she of the Christine Blasey Ford abomination, tried to pin down Kavanaugh on whether Roe was settled law. Kavanaugh replied: “Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years.”

Kavanaugh later said in response to South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham’s question about revisiting cases: “I listen to all arguments. You have an open mind. You get the briefs and arguments. And some arguments are better than others. Precedent is critically important. It is the foundation of our system. But you listen to all arguments.”

Somewhere along the line, the concept of the “super-precedent” was developed. Fearing that precedents can sometimes be overturned — it’s happened 145 times in the High Court’s history — Democrats wanted nominees to agree that Roe was a super-precedent so thoroughly settled that no politicians or groups would seriously push for overturning it. Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar wanted Barrett to agree to this. Barrett responded: “I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category. And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled, but descriptively, it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling.”

No conservative justice currently sitting on the Supreme Court ever agreed to rule a certain way regarding any law, settled or otherwise. That’s as it should be. Anything less would be a discredit to the profession and the institution. By claiming otherwise, the Democrats are making clear that no smear is beneath them.

The real question now is whether Samuel Alito’s leaked draft opinion bears any resemblance to the final ruling. If not, what changed, and why?