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

Polls on the Supreme Court update 10/4/22

NATIONAL POLL: Negative job rating for US Supreme Court (37% approve to 54% disapprove). A majority have disapproved of #SCOTUS since the abortion decision leak in May.

DISAPPROVE by PARTY:
DEM – 81%
IND – 54%
REP – 28% https://t.co/WJdcwK5yzJ pic.twitter.com/N8FmrmzAkK
— MonmouthPoll (@MonmouthPoll) September 30, 2022

NEW POLL: Supreme Court Trust, Job Approval at Historical Lows https://t.co/mm0jghap82
— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) September 29, 2022

In general, do you think the current Supreme Court is too liberal, too conservative, or just about right?

Too liberal 18%
Too conservative 42%
About right 38%

(Gallup Poll, 9/1-16/22)
trend: https://t.co/wOtlkkLIG2
— PollingReport.com (@pollreport) October 4, 2022

icymi

Is the current Supreme Court in touch or out of touch with the values and beliefs of most Americans?

In touch 34%
Out of touch 59%

(Monmouth U. Poll, 9/21-25/22)
more: https://t.co/wOtlkkLIG2
— PollingReport.com (@pollreport) October 3, 2022

Do you approve or disapprove of the job the U.S. Supreme Court is doing?

Approve 37%
Disapprove 54%

(Monmouth U. Poll, 9/21-25/22)
— PollingReport.com (@pollreport) September 30, 2022

The Supreme Court is currently a lifetime appointment. Would you support or oppose creating term limits for Supreme Court justices?

Support 66%
Oppose 31%

(Monmouth U. Poll, 9/21-25/22)
— PollingReport.com (@pollreport) September 30, 2022

In its 35 years of polling on the Supreme Court, Pew has never documented a wider partisan gap in views of the institution https://t.co/Q5jtvy1328
— TIME (@TIME) September 5, 2022

There’s never been a more partisan court than now during that time

The Supreme Court's ratings have plummeted by 33 points — to net -7% — after Republican justices overturned Roe v Wade.

This includes a dramatic -45% swing among independents, who now view the Court negatively.https://t.co/FTl8jMS0Um pic.twitter.com/0D6vtmn5GY
— Chris Kang (@cdkang76) August 29, 2022

NATIONAL POLL: Two-thirds (66%) of Americans would support creating term limits for US Supreme Court justices. Just 31% are opposed.

SUPPORT #SCOTUS TERM LIMITS by PARTY:
DEM – 86%
IND – 63%
REP – 51%https://t.co/WJdcwK5yzJ
— MonmouthPoll (@MonmouthPoll) September 30, 2022

NATIONAL POLL: Just 36% support expanding US Supreme Court to more than nine justices. A majority (60%) are opposed.

SUPPORT #SCOTUS EXPANSION by PARTY:
DEM – 67%
IND – 30%
REP – 14%https://t.co/WJdcwKnHNR
— MonmouthPoll (@MonmouthPoll) September 30, 2022

Term limits on the Supreme Court will take too long to have an impact

The Supreme Court is in new and perilous territory, the Editorial Board writes.https://t.co/KlfBBwzPqt
— Washington Post Opinions (@PostOpinions) September 17, 2022

what I wrote in comments on the Washington Post site.

Your editorial supporting term limits states “The reform would take a long time to work.” Are we supposed to put up with 30 more years of the extremist court until the Trump justices are gone? (I assume it would not apply to current justice.) This right-wing court will continue to do damage so this would not solve the problem any time soon. I expect them to endorse the independent state legislature theory in the next term. Term limits are a good idea but something else must be done sooner.

One thing that should be done is a law requiring the Senate to have hearings and a vote on any presidential nominee for the Supreme Court. A repeat McConnell’s shameful behavior on Garland is unacceptable.

Since your idea would exempt current justices, we would probably be stuck with the extremist Supreme Court (R) for decades because of the young Trump justices.
— Harris Levy (@HarrisL585) September 26, 2022