A leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was meant to “threaten and intimidate” the U.S. Supreme Court, Utah Sen. Mike Lee said Thursday.

Lee, a Republican, said during a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting that efforts by some to pressure, pack and delegitimize the nation’s highest court are “shameful, wrong, and dangerous.”

“Don’t threaten and intimidate the Supreme Court of the United States. And make no mistake, that was the point of this leak,” he said.

“I don’t know who did it for sure, but I’d bet money, and I’m not a betting man, I’d bet money that this was done for the purpose of denigrating and delegitimizing and embarrassing and isolating those members of the Supreme Court of the United States planning on joining Justice Alito’s opinion.”

Related
What Mitt Romney, Mike Lee say about leaked Supreme Court abortion opinion
Report suggests Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade

Politico first reported Monday that the Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing the right to an abortion, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court.

Chief Justice John Roberts ordered an investigation to find the source of the leak.

Lee, who served as a law clerk for Alito, said the 1973 ruling was “wrong,” legally, constitutionally and morally.

“A lot of us have put up for a very long time with decision-making that was wrong without questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court,” Lee said.

Related
What’s next for Utah in wake of leaked SCOTUS draft abortion decision?

Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked Lee to wrap up about eight minutes into his remarks to get on to other business. Lee said he didn’t intend to address the issue until he heard Durbin denigrate the conservative justices on the court.

In his opening statement, Durbin said four current Republican appointees on the court claimed during their confirmation hearings that they would respect the 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. They portrayed themselves as neutral umpires, driven not by policy objectives but a desire to call balls and strikes, to adhere to precedent, to simply apply the law to the facts,” he said. “This draft opinion tells a much different story.”

Durbin said Alito told him in response to a question during his 2006 hearing that Roe was a precedent to be respected. Former President Donald Trump’s three appointees — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — “paid the same lip service” to the decision, he said.

If Alito’s opinion becomes the majority opinion overturning the law it would amount to judicial activism, he said. Those justices were put on the court by Trump and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to deliver that outcome, Durbin said.