What happened to this Republican Party?
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|California
Adam B. Schiff
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 851
Yes31%
No66%
Present0%
Not Voting3%
Party align93%
Cross-party5%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Adam B. Schiff
U.S. SenatorDemocratCalifornia
SoupScore
Adam B.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 71 sponsored · 330 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
These senseless cuts to the @nws.noaa.gov will result in forecast delays that have deadly consequences.
When it comes to fires, floods, and other disasters – this endangers the lives of millions.
I'm pushing back against these cuts and fighting to protect all Californians.
Just finished taping with Stephen Colbert who announced his show was cancelled.
If Paramount and CBS ended the Late Show for political reasons, the public deserves to know. And deserves better.
The massive transfer of the personal data of millions of Medicaid recipients should alarm every American. This massive violation of our privacy laws must be halted immediately.
It will harm families across the nation and only cause more citizens to forego lifesaving access to health care.
Natural disasters are proliferating, and home insurance is becoming more unaffordable and unavailable.
Today, I'm introducing the INSURE Act to create a federal reinsurance program – to lower insurance costs and keep families and small businesses protected.
@booker.senate.gov and I just tried to force a vote to allow the prosecutor who blew the whistle on Emil Bove to appear before the Judiciary Committee.
Republicans ignored the rules – and rammed Bove through.
All that matters to them is power and appeasing their Dear Leader.
Trump has always surrounded himself with "yes" men.
So his dangerous nomination of Emil Bove to serve on a federal appeals court makes perfect sense.
Trump needs someone who is willing to do his bidding. And ignore the law when he deems it inconvenient.
This is just Donald Trump’s latest attempt at political retaliation against his perceived enemies.
So it is not a surprise, only how weak this false allegation turns out to be.
And much as Trump may hope, this smear will not distract from his Epstein files problem.
Since I led his first impeachment, Trump has repeatedly called for me to be arrested for treason.
So in a way, I guess this is a bit of a letdown.
And this baseless attempt at political retribution won’t stop me from holding him accountable.
Not by a long shot.
Firing everyone who could tell you what you're doing is unethical or illegal does not make what you're doing ethical or legal.
As Californians continue to face cycles of drought, it is critical that we invest in our water storage infrastructure.
I visited the San Luis Reservoir to learn about their earthquake retrofit project and how the reservoir delivers water to millions of families and farmers.
Donald Trump doesn’t really try to dispute his corruption or his lies. His point is more sinister, and made by other would-be despots.
His argument is that they are all liars and crooks, and that he is the only one who is open about it.
For all its cynical appeal, it is just another con.
Donald Trump doesn’t really try to dispute his corruption or his lies. His point is more sinister, and made by other would-be despots.
His argument is that they are all liars and crooks, and that he is the only one who is open about it.
For all its cynical appeal, it is just another con.
You're about to be hearing a lot about "rescission."
It's essentially a Republican effort to make even more cuts to the services we rely on. Let's talk about it:
Love it when Californians come visit the Capitol.
Food prices are still going up under Donald Trump.
If this administration is serious about lowering costs, frivolous lawsuits are not the way to do it.
Maybe try stopping the spread of bird flu instead of firing bird flu experts at USDA?
90 deals in 90 days?
Let's talk about how that went...
Emil Bove testified to me he didn't recall telling Justice Department lawyers that they should be prepared to tell the courts "f**k you".
His coworkers recall it clearly enough.
They quote him verbatim.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History851 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
851 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-10-30 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-10-30 | S.J. Res. 88 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (51-47) |
| 2025-10-30 | S.J. Res. 80 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-45) |
| 2025-10-29 | S.J. Res. 77 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-46) |
| 2025-10-29 | S.J. Res. 69 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (25-72) |
| 2025-10-29 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-47) |
| 2025-10-29 | S.J. Res. 80 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (54-46) |
| 2025-10-28 | S.J. Res. 81 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-48) |
| 2025-10-28 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-10-28 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-47) |
| 2025-10-28 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-10-28 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-27 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (58-40) |
| 2025-10-27 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-10-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2025-10-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-45) |
| 2025-10-23 | S. 3012 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-22 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-10-22 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-10-22 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-39) |
| 2025-10-22 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-21 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
| 2025-10-21 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-10-21 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-10-21 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (66-32) |
| 2025-10-20 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-43, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-16 | H.R. 4016 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-44, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-16 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (62-34) |
| 2025-10-16 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-15 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-44, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-14 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (49-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Final passage | NO | YES | ✕ | Bill Passed (77-20, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (10-88, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (51-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (53-43, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2296 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (14-83, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-47) |
| 2025-10-09 | H.J. Res. 106 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-46) |
| 2025-10-09 | H.J. Res. 106 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-10-09 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-09 | S. 2882 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-10-08 | H.J. Res. 105 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-45) |
| 2025-10-08 | S.J. Res. 83 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 83 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-10-08 | S.J. Res. 71 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Defeated (47-51) |
| 2025-10-08 | H.J. Res. 105 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-10-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-47) |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.