One lesson from the Democratic failure to respond to the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade

It’s pathetic that the Democratic Party didn’t have a response ready when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. There were months, even years to prepare for this.

We should learn from this error and be better prepared for the next Supreme Court sessions. It is possible (I would say probable) that the Supreme Court will endorse the extremist Independent State Legislatures theory. Republican legislatures can bypass the will of voters and the impact of their state courts and make electoral decisions that benefit their candidates.

What can be done to prevent this decision? We need much more publicity now on how bad it would be.

What can be done to blunt the impact if the Court does support the theory?

We should start thinking about this now, not wait until the Court acts. Obviously, there is no action to extreme for the current group of justices so we must prepare for the worst.

More on the terrible Supreme Court EPA decision

The Supreme Court upended environmental law at the worst possible moment, Richard Lazarus writes in a guest opinion. https://t.co/RgWONja2zm
— Washington Post Opinions (@PostOpinions) July 1, 2022

The last of the Supreme Court's blockbuster rulings, curtailing the ability of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, "has implications far beyond the vital issue of climate change," @paulwaldman1 writes. "And the conservative justices aren’t even done." https://t.co/HFLfHqkgQX
— Washington Post Opinions (@PostOpinions) July 1, 2022

The EPA had a way to address climate change without Congress passing new legislation — until the Supreme Court weighed in today. https://t.co/pgQiHoqfW2
— Philip Bump (@pbump) July 1, 2022

The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented in the ruling limiting the EPA's ability to restrict power plant emissions, writing that the decision strips the agency of "the power to respond to the most pressing environmental challenge of our time." https://t.co/lUcpgRUGD8 pic.twitter.com/6h8PcN4vxN
— The New York Times (@nytimes) June 30, 2022

Justice Kagan: "The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decision- maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening. Respectfully, I dissent." https://t.co/L3sGnqB8Zg
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 30, 2022

A new low for Clarence Thomas?

Clarence Thomas claimed in a dissenting opinion that Covid vaccines are derived from the cells of “aborted children.”

No Covid vaccines in the U.S. contain the cells of aborted fetuses. https://t.co/13YartfO5Z
— POLITICO (@politico) June 30, 2022

Terrible Supreme Court Decision on the EPA

"The [anti-EPA decision] is the product of a coordinated, multiyear strategy by GOP attorneys general, conservative legal activists and their funders to use the judicial system to…weaken the executive branch’s ability to tackle global warming."https://t.co/VIS0mKfZ4b
— Trip Gabriel (@tripgabriel) June 30, 2022

The Supreme Court’s EPA ruling could make it impossible for President Biden to meet his goal to cut U.S. pollution by half, experts said. https://t.co/KAyWaM63or
— The New York Times (@nytimes) June 30, 2022

Justice Kagan: "The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decision- maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening. Respectfully, I dissent." https://t.co/L3sGnqB8Zg
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 30, 2022

The issue isn't just that the *current* Congress is subject to the filibuster-induced deadlock; it's that *no* Congress will ever have the *capacity* to regulate across every issue with the specificity that "major questions" requires. It's not pro-democracy; it's anti-regulation.
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 30, 2022

The Supreme Court fundamentally rewrote America's separation of powers in its big EPA decision, effectively placing the judiciary at the head of much of the Executive Branch of government.https://t.co/S9rvUwhKun
— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) June 30, 2022

Worst Supreme Court term ever?

As far as I know it is.

overturned Roe v. Wade
made it easier to carry guns
eliminated consequences for not giving Miranda rights
killed EPA’s ability to make regulations to combat climate change
decision on prayer case allowing the coach to pray on the field

I am sure I left some out but those are the ones that come to mind

Undoing Roe is awful. Kneecapping environmental regulation is existential. This Supreme Court has just come down on the side of civilizational collapse.
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) June 30, 2022

Well, that whole entire Supreme Court term sucked ass.
— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) June 30, 2022

Not a bad summary, sadly. Not every case, of course, manifests this "We're doing this because we can" attitude, but all the blockbusters do. We're now governed by an elite cabal of dubious legitimacy, the quintessential tyranny of the minority. This can't be allowed to stand. https://t.co/sKenlEMSSj
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) June 30, 2022

Chuck Schumer goes after the “MAGA Court” after recent SCOTUS rulings.

“First on gun safety, then on abortion, and now on the environment – this MAGA, regressive, extremist Supreme Court is intent on setting America back decades, if not centuries,” Schumer says in a statement. pic.twitter.com/49CElAHpWl
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) June 30, 2022

This is what a judicial coup looks like pic.twitter.com/dTZ4zgHJdg
— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) June 30, 2022

The Supreme Court has gone rogue. We are in a full-blown Constitutional crisis. Congress must act. And we must pressure Congress to act, while it still can. #TheMajority
— Heather Cox Richardson (TDPR) (@HC_Richardson) June 30, 2022

In one term, the extremist Supreme Court:

-overturns Roe v. Wade

-guts Miranda rights

-ends regulations on open-carry of guns

-allows prayer in schools by employees

-ends federal regulation of greenhouse gases
— Sawyer Hackett (@SawyerHackett) June 30, 2022

an unmitigated disaster of a Supreme Court Term. and only 25 or so more to go…
— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) June 30, 2022

The Supreme Court has moved relentlessly to the right, issuing blockbuster decisions on cases from abortion to climate change that will transform U.S. life. By one standard measurement, the term that ended this week was the most conservative since 1931. https://t.co/WpQ1DdX8bS
— The New York Times (@nytimes) July 1, 2022

New —> Democrats run Washington, but the Supreme Court delivers big wins for GOP https://t.co/41AK6aWZSb
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) July 1, 2022

It’s now abundantly clear that Trump’s appointees are in control of this court, and they’re not searching for consensus. https://t.co/iHxY8hWrog
— FiveThirtyEight (@FiveThirtyEight) July 9, 2022

The Supreme Court is historically right wing – and historically polarized. 21% of decisions were split by the party of the appointing president, which is unprecedented in the modern era.

Our end-of-term wrap-up, with @ameliatd and @elena___mejia:https://t.co/dq91Gq4BrL pic.twitter.com/8jk45NAOaR
— Laura Bronner (@laurabronner) July 5, 2022

The signature moment of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority — overturning Roe v. Wade — would have been enough to highlight the term.

But the justices of what scholars say is one of the most conservative courts in decades did far more than that. https://t.co/nV8PfhZu0b
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) July 2, 2022

The Supreme Court rules this country with ruthless efficiency and unchecked power. This term provided only a taste of what the 6–3 supermajority has in store for us. https://t.co/ntiUlOWYNw pic.twitter.com/ra3Hhzr2vt
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 30, 2022

I'm hard-pressed to think of a more momentous Term in the Supreme Court's history. Ever.

Maybe there have been individual decisions that were more important, but the number of significant, paradigm-shifting rulings, and all in the *same* direction, really has no precedent IMHO.
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) June 30, 2022

Next Supreme Court term could support the terrible independent state legislature theory

The radical independent state legislature theory gives extreme control of elections to states. The Supreme Court (R) has agreed to hear a case about it in the next term. They could make yet another terrible decision.

Just in: In an election case out of North Carolina, SCOTUS agrees to review the "independent state legislature" theory next term. Under that theory, state legislatures have broad power to set rules for federal elections, even if state courts say those rules are unconstitutional.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2022

Breaking and Analysis: Supreme Court Will Hear Moore v. Harper, the Independent State Legislature Theory Case from North Carolina; This Case Could Severely Curtail the Ability of State Courts to Protect Voting Rights and Stop Partisan Gerrymandering https://t.co/9sIC6NAbNB
— Rick Hasen (@rickhasen) June 30, 2022

A major, major election case to be heard by SCOTUS next term.

This concerns the "independent state legislature theory" which argues state legislatures have the authority over federal elections without checks from state constitutions or state courts.https://t.co/m6YUKgJ5iE
— Nick Corasaniti (@NYTnickc) June 30, 2022

🚨BREAKING: Supreme Court grants cert to review North Carolina redistricting case. This will be a CRITICAL case for democracy next term as the Court will consider the GOP's radical "Independent State Legislature" theory.https://t.co/xJgagh0pVW pic.twitter.com/eqCvacD8Np
— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) June 30, 2022

BREAKING: The Supreme Court takes up a case about the independent state legislature doctrine for next term, which could give state legislatures far greater power over all manner of election laws. https://t.co/R2jTEKWoeT
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 30, 2022

This is EXACTLY WHY the SC is taking this case. WI, PA, GA, NC: Swing states where GOP has gerrymandered guaranteed control of the state leg.

If the situation were reversed and Dems had semi-permanent control of those legislatures, would the court be doing this? Of course not. https://t.co/6FNC9GI33Y
— Paul Waldman (@paulwaldman1) July 1, 2022

🚨SCOTUS will hear 2 critical voting/election cases in Fall.

Merrill v Milligan–GOP wants to undermine Sec 2 of VRA.

Moore v Harper–GOP wants to strip state courts of power to limit legislatures in election cases.

Democracy is literally on the docket.https://t.co/8iFP5fL7em
— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) July 1, 2022

Bad Supreme Court decision on Native American rights

This Court is going to be looked at as like the Court of Plessy, ushering in some of the darkest days for American democracy and upholding power at every turn. https://t.co/e8aTVREM6P
— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) June 29, 2022

This #SCOTUS opinion in #CastroHuerta is an act of conquest. Full stop.

The right and power of tribes to rule themselves is being dismissed in favor of state power.

Tribes are…I can’t even write it…part of states.
— Elizabeth Hidalgo Reese (Yunpovi) (@yunpovi) June 29, 2022

The Supreme Court majority calls Native Americans "Indians" while the dissent calls them "Native Americans".

That's all you really need to know.
— Pé🌻 (@4everNeverTrump) June 29, 2022

The terrible 2000 election Supreme Court decision was the beginning

Great tweet
Would also like to note that Republicans wanted recounts in 2020 but not in 2000. Hypocrites. https://t.co/hvX1q6JGe6
— Harris Levy (@HarrisL585) June 25, 2022

A truly amazing 22-year-long thread starting in FLA before Bush v. Gore with the through line of John Eastman’s democracy-destroying theory that Independent State Legislatures can override the State’s voters and their State’s Constitution to elect presidents and representatives: https://t.co/cz8FwxsmHm
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) April 17, 2022

“Bush opposed any manual recount at all. His legal team included three future Supreme Court justices: John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.”
The 2000 U.S. presidential election was a harbinger of things to come. by @jennycohn1 https://t.co/BZUIo3oaNf
— LautenBK 🇺🇦 (@SecretSinger) March 26, 2022

Will the right-wing Supreme Court attack free speech?

I wouldn’t be shocked if they try to reverse New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The decision requires public figures to prove malice in defamation lawsuits. Emboldened by their win on abortion, the extremist court will attack other rights.

Clarence Thomas wants to overturn NY Times v Sullivan and allow gov’t to censor social media companies b/c originalism but also wants to disable gov’t from regulating money in elections under first amendment an impossible position under originalism. He’s just a partisan. Period.
— Eric Segall (@espinsegall) October 2, 2022

Don't forget: both Justices Gorsuch and Thomas have also called for a "review" of NYT v. Sullivan, a ruling that bolsters the First Amendment.
Autocracy comes at you quick.
— Michelle Kosinski (@MichLKosinski) June 25, 2022

Justices Gorsuch and Thomas call to revisit landmark First Amendment case New York Times v. Sullivan

She says "the Supreme Court is coming for all the free press cases next" https://t.co/kRvQkyyV1e
— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) June 26, 2022

The potential world where the U.S. Supreme Court overturns NY Times v. Sullivan—leading to rape victims not only being forced to carry pregnancies to term, but also getting sued into financial oblivion for talking about it afterward—seems both likely and not far off.
— Daniel A. Horwitz (@danielahorwitz) June 25, 2022

Pretty soon, top editors at news outlets won't even have to send those mortifying memos shushing their staffs when their rights get obliterated; YOLOSCOTUS is perfectly happy to erode 1A protections, too.

Should we be quiet about that as well? https://t.co/O2S6zUy001
— A Shady Dame From Seville (@SorayaMcDonald) June 26, 2022

Supreme Court sabotages Miranda rights

A terrible decision in a week full of them

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that police officers may not be sued under a federal civil rights law for failing to administer the familiar warning required by the court’s 1966 decision in Miranda v. Arizona. https://t.co/xhVu54ZqN9
— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) June 23, 2022