Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft decision, steeped in authoritarian strains of religious dogma, is a road map for further erosions of the liberties all Americans enjoy. The court’s apparent decision to deprive women of a constitutional right to control their bodies, health, and destiny is the direct consequence of the pact between the Republican Party and American’s religious nationalists. Tellingly, the authoritarian origins of the decision are written into the draft opinion itself, which, should it end up being the majority holding in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, will serve as a model and platform for advancing a wider assault on individual rights and American democracy for the benefit of a privileged few. Women of childbearing age are among the first victims of the authoritarian movement that brought us a radicalized Supreme Court. They won’t be the last. … The argument laid out by Alito, in essence, is that women should be deprived of our rights in the future because we have often been deprived of our rights in the past. … Depriving individuals of their rights is only half of the work of a court bent on paving the way for a Christian nationalist regime. The other half consists in dispensing privileges to favored groups. … Anyone who cares about the rights of individuals against tyranny should fight the court’s apparent decision on abortion rights. But unless we make the fight about the takeover of the court itself—and unless it brings about the changes that this corrupted institution requires—the existential threat to American democracy will persist.
Those are excerpts from this article:

https://newrepublic.com/article/166404/christian-right-roe-alito-abortion

Rachel (of Americans United for Separation of Church and State) did an awesome job in the We the People podcast. I hope you’ll give it a listen–see link above. On the other hand Nicole Garnett of Notre Dame Law School sounds insane to me.
This is what I heard Nicole Garnett say:

• Nicole seems to say that coercion is only IF the kids are beat for not praying
• Nicole seems to say that the First Amendment’s Establishment clause should be ignored in the future because we have often been deprived of our rights in the past. (Please note that Nicole doesn’t seem to understand that it isn’t religious liberty when the benefit is given to some but not to others. Are we going to force school districts to allow all religious people to pray on the 50 yard line after football games or is it only the Protestants that she wants to get this privilege?)
• Even though the facts demonstrate that the coach wasn’t silently praying by himself, that’s what Nicole wants the justices to decide on. (Rachel points out that IF the coach was ONLY privately silently praying, the school district would have probably renewed his contract so this lawsuit wouldn’t exist.)
• Nicole discounts Thomas Jefferson in her originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

In 2016, when Sen. Mitch McConnell and the Republican Senate refused to consider the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the high court, they didn’t just steal a seat — they robbed the court itself of some of its remaining legitimacy. Last year, when they broke their own cynically contrived rule against confirming justices in an election year to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett, they obliterated any facade that the court is above the partisan fray. … The court’s partisanship has especially alarming implications for American democracy. Whenever I make the case for expansion, I start with the reality that our democracy is in peril. Inevitably someone asks whether that’s hyperbole. It’s not. … The only way we can restore the court — and democracy itself — is to add seats, and the only window to act is now.
Those are excerpts from this article:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/03/the-urgent-need-for-court-expansion/