“Without Court expansion, Democrats are unlikely to regain control of the Court until..2065”

I’d love to hear a Democratic senator who opposes Supreme Court expansion get asked about this study, and then watch them explain with a straight face why they’re ceding control of the Court to far-right ideologues until their grandchildren reach retirement age https://t.co/MCgGhP5yqP
— Jay Willis (@jaywillis) May 8, 2023

@WhiteHouse
Have you seen this? Please take court expansion seriously. It doesn’t look like anything else will prevent long term dominance by extreme conservatives. We have seen what that means. https://t.co/QbO2ULSuT9
— Harris Levy (@HarrisL585) May 9, 2023

The Supreme Court majority is acting like part of the GOP

They ignore precedents

They don’t care what the public wants

Three were installed by Trump/McConnell under sleazy but not illegal conditions

Then they wonder why they are unpopular

"…The modern Supreme Court has made itself the most powerful branch of government. Superior to Congress. Superior to the president. Superior to the states. Superior to precedent, procedure, and norms. In effect, superior to the people."
https://t.co/Z01LWrHyTl
— Sheldon Whitehouse (@SenWhitehouse) March 15, 2023

The Supreme Court is far less rigorous about precedent under its current majority.

⁦⁦@adamliptak⁩ traces how Kavanaugh admits to overruling liberal federal programs based on this new, made up thing, where he “knows it” when he “sees it.” https://t.co/79HHx4fuV6
— Ari Melber (@AriMelber) March 7, 2023

Overruling Roe was only part of the Supreme Court's GOP agenda. Get ready for some retrograde decisions. (via Deadline: Legal Blog) https://t.co/g9mdnmH1HA
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) March 4, 2023

This law, if passed, sets up a legal challenge to go to SCOTUS, giving them the opportunity to reverse Obergefell & marriage equality. It's a real threat after the end of legal abortion. If Dems lose the WH in 2024 & ability to appoint the next justices, more rights fall. https://t.co/vz67bECjxz
— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) March 3, 2023

Conservative SCOTUS justices are using a new doctrine as a tool to tank Biden administration policies they simply don't like. https://t.co/jpIkqNOxFl
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) March 1, 2023

Insane to me that John Roberts, who simply could not shut up today about the "fairness" of student debt forgiveness, is the same guy who in Rucho expressly dismissed "fairness" concerns as "political questions beyond the competence of the federal courts" https://t.co/XnvWr1xr5q pic.twitter.com/o4yp8ysQCn
— Jay Willis (@jaywillis) February 28, 2023

"Make no mistake, the argument that the US Supreme Court is not a political animal, and is capable of impartiality and balance, is a relic theory and continues to be mocked each time this slim Conservative majority issues another opinion." https://t.co/bQ7Gpg5rhE
— Amee Vanderpool (@girlsreallyrule) February 9, 2023

Ye old Supreme Court? Your originalism is making America unsafe, @RuthMarcus writes. https://t.co/H8s7pASvfC
— Washington Post Opinions (@PostOpinions) February 4, 2023

Overturn Citizens United

This is a great idea. The terrible Supreme Court decision has given rich people excessive influence on elections and thus on government policies.

BREAKING: We've introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and the irresponsible SCOTUS decisions that came before it.

Unrestricted dark money has no place in our elections or democracy. We need to return power to people. Once and for all. pic.twitter.com/zUoTbMa11k
— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) January 19, 2023

Citizens United was one of the most egregious enablers of special interest money. This would be a great thing for Democracy. https://t.co/js58LK40S5
— CALL TO ACTIVISM (@CalltoActivism) January 19, 2023

"Americans should raise their voices to demand that election winners are chosen by the voters, not the donors," a reader writes in #PostLetters. https://t.co/5SlKzmY7Ve
— Washington Post Opinions (@PostOpinions) January 19, 2023

The inadequate investigation of the Supreme Court leak

This is pathetic. There aren’t that many people who would have access to the draft. It doesn’t appear they interviewed the justices or spouses (who I think include the leaker). They don’t want to know who did it because it would look bad if it was a justice or spouse.

This means the investigation was not thorough enough. They don’t want to know who did it if it was a justice or their spouse. pic.twitter.com/2kxD3RchsI
— Harris Levy (@HarrisL585) January 19, 2023

If I'm a bored headline writer for a news outlet, I feel like this would be the lead: "Supreme Court Justices can't determine if a staffer leaked Dobbs opinion, but refuse to investigate themselves." This ain't hard. https://t.co/Rhvy8z9KTX
— Secrets and Laws (@secretsandlaws) January 19, 2023

I told everybody, from the very beginning, that if the Dobbs leaker turned out to be a Republican, the Supreme Court would somehow never find who did it.

Welp, the report's out and, what do you know, they don't know who did it.
— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) January 19, 2023

It is apparent that additional steps could have been taken here, but there were significant obstacles due to the nature of the investigation and the unique

Chertoff’s report writes around those issues rather than addressing them head on. It should be read skeptically. https://t.co/56hb26tDyC
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) January 19, 2023

NEW: SCOTUS says after interviewing 97 people and "examining the Court’s computer devices, networks, printers, and available call and text logs," it can't "identify a person responsible by
a preponderance of the evidence" for leaking the Dobbs draft.
— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) January 19, 2023

The lack of results from the Marshal’s investigation buttresses my personal belief that a Justice in the majority leaked the Dobbs draft or directed it be leaked.
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) January 19, 2023

The biggest mystery in Washington remains unsolved as SCOTUS says it has failed to find leaker of abortion opinion…..but it also appears they did not talk to any of the Justices. I joined @CNNThisMorning @kaitlancollins w/the latest. pic.twitter.com/K2Qm0EDzuU
— Paula Reid (@PaulaReidCNN) January 20, 2023

in which the reporter who is the one who knows where the Dobbs draft leak came from (@joshgerstein) writes his takeaways about the Supreme Court's failed search to figure it out: https://t.co/5vbdyyjmE1
— Edward-Isaac Dovere (@IsaacDovere) January 20, 2023

.@chrislhayes on the SCOTUS investigation into the abortion draft leak:

“The report says they spoke to 97 court employees. But it is worth noting that it appears the investigators didn't actually question the Supreme Court Justices themselves.” pic.twitter.com/KY9EfAiDpZ
— All In with Chris Hayes (@allinwithchris) January 20, 2023

Right-wing extremists on the Supreme Court (R) could end affirmative action

The Supreme Court is widely expected to overturn or roll back affirmative action in college admissions. Many education experts say this could change everything about the process — including scholarships, standardized testing and alumni preferences. https://t.co/ZHFngtGov6
— The New York Times (@nytimes) January 16, 2023

Black applicants receiving offers of admission would drop to half that of white students…predicting a return to “1960s levels.” https://t.co/QHI8R1kAhh
— Jonathan M. Metzl (@JonathanMetzl) January 15, 2023

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear argument in a pair of cases raising the momentous question whether universities can continue to employ any sort of affirmative action in admissions.
As the Dobbs case overturned some 50 years of precedent, the Court looks poised to undo
— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) October 30, 2022

If the court ends affirmative action, even banning targeted outreach to POC applicants, there will still be aff action for rich (white) kids. https://t.co/GMPQYdQgSV
— Michael Mechanic (@MichaelMechanic) January 15, 2023

John Roberts won’t face the issues

He won’t deal with ethics

He won’t deal with the fact that the extreme right-wing court is out of touch with what America wants

He ignores the reasons the court is unpopular

He will go down as a terrible Chief Justice.

It’s clear he will do nothing about a code of ethics for the Supreme Court. https://t.co/6umlq32PPd
— Harris Levy (@HarrisL585) January 1, 2023

The Supreme Court (R) doesn’t care what you think

Sure, they should do something about the things Marcus writes about but they won’t because they don’t care about anything except their extremist agenda.

They’ve had plenty of time to find out who leaked the Dobbs draft. How many people could have had access to it? I would be surprised if it’s more than a few hundred. I am guessing (with no basis) that it’s Alito or Ginni Thomas and they don’t want to tell us.

Congress needs to do something since it’s clear the Court won’t.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh partying with right-wing conservatives raises ethical questions, @RuthMarcus writes. https://t.co/yPksrD5kQp
— Washington Post Opinions (@PostOpinions) December 14, 2022

They’ve had plenty of time to find out who leaked the Dobbs draft. I assume they won’t tell us if it’s a conservative. Expanding the court is the only solution to the problems of this extreme right wing court. Otherwise, the court is just a GOP tool.
— Harris Levy (@HarrisL585) December 14, 2022

Jordan Rubin: The Supreme Court has basically been operating on an ethical honor system. Now, amid another alleged right-wing leak and an unusually steep trust deficit with the public, it's time the high court face an independent investigation. https://t.co/0qSW1JCcXC
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) December 12, 2022

The world may never know whether it was Alito or Ginni Thomas who leaked the Dobbs decision. Shame.

What happened to the investigation into the Dobbs draft leak? | The Hill https://t.co/fdZALz5WlP
— Invictus (@TBPInvictus) December 9, 2022

Republicans benefitted from their Supreme Court’s unwillingness to enforce lower court rulings on gerrymandering

A big reason why it looks like they will win the House of Representatives.

If there’s a tiny GOP House majority next year, it won’t be legitimate. https://t.co/eF21nWpSWV
— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) November 13, 2022

Still more examples, but one of the major factors in the Republicans possibly winning the house despite an abysmal midterm was the Republican controlled Supreme Court decided the voting rights act and the 15th Amendment didn’t matter and states could ignore it https://t.co/bC4ZMxyGdA
— Adam Serwer 🍝 (@AdamSerwer) November 13, 2022

With the House now likely to be very close (either way), the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho greenlighting partisan gerrymandering and its use of the shadow docket to put a hold on the drawing of new VRA districts in AL & LA just became that much more magnified.
— Michael Li 李之樸 (@mcpli) November 9, 2022

While we await results, here’s a brief thread about something that tends to get lost in the shuffle when we talk about election outcomes: The right-wing Supreme Court tilting the electoral playing field in the GOP’s favor. (1/15)
— Jamison Foser (@jamisonfoser) November 8, 2022

The terrible Independent State Legislature theory

The Supreme Court could undermine elections by endorsing it. Nothing is too extreme for this bunch.

The League of Women Voters and a coalition of LWV chapters representing 50 states and D.C. have come out against the so-called "independent state legislature theory." @LWV #ISLTamici @BrennanCenter

Brief: https://t.co/HDrIk5gCW8

Key Quote: pic.twitter.com/Vk8NkLUecp
— Tom "T.M." Wolf (@tomTMwolf) October 28, 2022

CLC has filed a friend-of-the court brief in #MoorevHarper that outlines how dangerous the independent state legislature theory is to our #democracy and encourages #SCOTUS to preserve the role of state courts and independent redistricting commissions.https://t.co/49kAISAS0y
— Campaign Legal Center (@CampaignLegal) October 25, 2022

It is interesting how many conservative legal eminences are begging the Supreme Court not to do the crazy thing it is threatening to do to our elections. https://t.co/kbsCfXh9Oj
— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) October 25, 2022

Retired conservative federal Judge J. Michael Luttig joins with voting rights groups as a co-counsel in a Supreme Court case in order to persuade the justices to reject an obscure legal theory that has been promoted by Trump supporters https://t.co/GnELL4e4d6
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) October 19, 2022

The plaintiffs in the pending SCOTUS case on the so-called "independent state legislature theory" just filed a strong takedown of the theory, featuring a key addition to their legal team–noted conservative jurist @judgeluttig

Context, highlights, & analysis🧵👇@BrennanCenter pic.twitter.com/T2UucnMOgC
— Tom "T.M." Wolf (@tomTMwolf) October 19, 2022

You need to listen to this @AliVelshi interview with @judgeluttig about the extreme version of an “independent state legislature” theory that SCOTUS is considering this term in Moore v Harper. This is the best analysis out there of this dangerous idea. https://t.co/K829qknuyo
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) October 17, 2022

The extreme right-wing Supreme Court will probably end affirmative action

As part of their plan to take the country back to the 1950s, I expect the extremist Supreme Court (R) to overturn affirmative action.

The Court is poised to “transform Brown from an indictment against racial apartheid into a tool that supports racial exclusion.” We’re all learning that the gap between the unimaginable and the inevitable is narrowing fast and may soon vanish altogether.https://t.co/mTV9WJCII9
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) October 28, 2022

Affirmative action under threat as high court hears UNC case https://t.co/t25n72PLYL
— The Associated Press (@AP) October 29, 2022

This week the Supreme Court hears a challenge to affirmative action—and will likely overrule more than four decades of precedents on college admissions. https://t.co/cyjL45F6ub
— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) October 29, 2022

The most diverse group of Supreme Court justices in history will gather Monday to confront the issue that has vexed and deeply divided past courts: affirmative action. https://t.co/x60mrKaQmh
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) October 29, 2022

It’s official: Supreme Court is nixing affirmative action next term. Arguments set for October https://t.co/5XOqaBK80Z
— Sophia Tesfaye (@SophiaTesfaye) August 12, 2022

Supreme Court will hear two major cases concerning race-based affirmative action at Harvard and the University of North Carolina on October 31 https://t.co/jPjHbWmHHi
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) August 3, 2022

Next term, the Supreme Court will hear a case about affirmative action. Justice Thomas' wife sits on the board of the group that is backing the lawsuit.

This is why it's important we have a code of ethics for our judicial system: so conflicts of interest like this do not arise.
— Citizens for Ethics (@CREWcrew) July 2, 2022