Elizabeth Warren who I think very highly of, rather than simply saying that ISDS is bad, should talk about ways that ISDS could be made more just. Just saying "ISDS is bad" isn't very productive. Moreover, the fact that the US has never lost such a case indicates at the very least that ISDS is not, at least not at present, the nightmare that some make it out to be (though I get what you are saying in the OP: that the US has never lost a case is not conclusive evidence, just suggestive). And since we are going to be trading with other nations, there is going to be something like ISDS, so I think efforts towards improving it are more productive than efforts just opposing it.
Also, a lot of opposition to ISDS seems to be based on the principle that private corporations should not be able to sue governments in extra-judicial courts. And that makes for a good talking point, but it's not correct. There needs to be a mechanism by which investors can defend themselves against targeted protectionist laws, and it has to be in an extra-judicial court because neither party would, nor should, trust the courts in one of the two countries involved. I suppose it could be set up in such a way that investors can't directly challenge governments, only governments can, but that would add another layer of bureaucracy and potential corruption because an investor would then have to lobby his/her own government to raise the issue in an "SSDS" tribunal rather then doing it themselves.
The Obama administration claims that TPP represents a marked improvement over previous trade deals with respect to ISDS. Is that actually true? Probably there's some improvement, but not enough.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/02/26/investor-state-dispute-settlement-isds-questions-and-answers
= new reply since forum marked as read