Maybe this was true in the 1950s and 60s, but a lot of things enshrined by judicial or executive fiat already have democratic support. ex: https://xkcd.com/1431/ Tearing them down is just an exercise in vetocracy.
I'm not entirely sure how this relates to copyright, though - an aspect of law whose main impact on the average person is YouTube or Facebook saying "no, you can't put 50 year old pop songs on your uploads". Here, the problem isn't a majority opposition that needs to be convinced, it's a majority that doesn't care, or doesn't know how to fight in favor of reform.
IA won't be gone because libraries have limitations on copyright damages. In fact, they already paid damages in a settlement with the publishers in the lawsuit. The only reason why there even is an appeal being talked about is because IA and the publishers both agreed to keep the case live through the appeals court.
Liberals were spoiled by the Warren Court in thinking that their own personal crusades will be inevitably be given force of law in the end by an appointed judge or an executive order. No, you're going to have to convince people, you can't just wave your degrees and resume around.
It's self-indulgent to risk the archive and the wayback machine like this, but it was his to risk. If it's gone after this, I guess the people who think this was a noble cause can write a poem or do a retrospective about what archive.org was in a gallery somewhere.