Free Leonard Peltier.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Hawaii
Brian Schatz
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 772
Yes26%
No73%
Present0%
Not Voting1%
Party align96%
Cross-party1%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Brian Schatz
U.S. SenatorDemocratHawaii
SoupScore
Brian's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 44 sponsored · 168 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Reposted byBrian Schatz
I’m all for pushing back on purity politics (my latest newsletter made that exact argument), but I also don’t think not wanting to voluntarily subject yourself to unhinged far right lunatics attacking you for posting even the most banal tweets qualifies as “purity politics.”
Leonard Williams seems kinda fast.
This is not my position. People can do whatever they want and not everyone has to be on the same internet at all moments. Or on the internet at all.
To be clear this is not why I am here. I am here because I enjoy using it more.
If I don’t use a certain app it doesn’t mean I’m engaging in purity politics. For me - and this, again isn’t a political statement - I find this one easier to navigate. It’s not that deep. Sometimes people want to say what’s on their mind without being deluged by flying horseshit.
gotta stop eating pie
I just think it’s inevitable.
Just wanted to say that I don’t really miss the other website. I will leave it to big online thinkers to tell us what it all means, but it is not nothing that being here online is more informative and enjoyable. Folks should do whatever they want but I’m impressed with this site.
Don’t worry I never understand what you are saying when it’s one of these posts!
Happy Thanksgiving everyone. I hope you eat well and laugh a lot.
Everything is fine!
I think we are saying the same thing! And you should just @ me ! Happy Thanksgiving.
Reposted byBrian Schatz
Nothing like raising your prices to give tax breaks to the corporations that are raising your prices.
I just think apartments should be legal it’s not that deep for me.
My primary framing for social justice is not deregulation. But housing deregulation is pretty squarely a social justice issue given the history of post Jim Crow real estate and lending in America. Anyway thanks for the engagement just trying to learn and see if we can exchange ideas with no dunking!
Yeah. I just think telling people they can have nice things and that it doesn’t take a revolution is a pretty good pitch where the policy tools are credible. Many shortages are caused by corporations, others by government and other times by external factors. But, I see what you are saying. Thanks.
We cannot. But there are multiple problems in society and one of them is specifically that we make it hard to build houses, and whatever you wanna call it I think it should be easier. That doesn’t mean I belong to a whole ideology, just that I think people are suffering from a lack of housing,
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History772 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
772 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-06-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (58-33) |
| 2025-06-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-06-18 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-06-18 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-46) |
| 2025-06-17 | S. 1582 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Passed (68-30) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (57-40) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-44) |
| 2025-06-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (46-39) |
| 2025-06-16 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (44-33) |
| 2025-06-12 | S. 1582 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (67-27, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-12 | S. 1582 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (67-30) |
| 2025-06-12 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Amdt. No. 2307) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Agreed to (64-33, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-12 | S. 1582 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Failed (45-52) |
| 2025-06-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-44) |
| 2025-06-11 | S.J. Res. 54 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 54 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (39-56) |
| 2025-06-11 | S.J. Res. 53 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 53 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (39-56) |
| 2025-06-11 | S. 1582 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (68-30, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-06-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-43) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-44) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-44) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2025-06-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-41) |
| 2025-06-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-43) |
| 2025-06-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-41) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-40) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-43) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-43) |
| 2025-06-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-43) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (57-38) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (48-46) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-37) |
| 2025-06-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-06-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (72-26) |
| 2025-06-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (66-28) |
| 2025-06-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (59-36) |
| 2025-06-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (59-37) |
| 2025-06-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-06-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2025-05-22 | H.J. Res. 89 (119th) | Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 89 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (49-46) |
| 2025-05-22 | H.J. Res. 89 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-05-22 | H.J. Res. 87 (119th) | Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 87 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (51-45) |
| 2025-05-22 | H.J. Res. 87 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-05-22 | H.J. Res. 88 (119th) | Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 88 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (51-44) |
| 2025-05-21 | H.J. Res. 88 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-05-21 | S.J. Res. 55 (119th) | Joint Resolution S.J.Res. 55 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (51-46) |
| 2025-05-21 | S.J. Res. 55 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 55 | NO | NO | ✓ | Point of Order Sustained (51-46) |
| 2025-05-21 | S.J. Res. 55 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 55 | NO | NO | ✓ | Point of Order Sustained (51-46) |
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.