Remember May 2016, when Trump announced his so-called “Federalist Society list” of justices he would choose from? Remember that we then discovered that the Federalist Society never even considered, let alone approved, any such list? It was a cover.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Rhode Island
Sheldon Whitehouse
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 789
Yes31%
No65%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align95%
Cross-party5%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Sheldon Whitehouse
U.S. SenatorDemocratRhode Island
SoupScore
Sheldon's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 88 sponsored · 218 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Remember that the battle between House of Koch and House of Trump suddenly went quiet? And Kochs poured millions into Republican GOTV helping Trump? Odd pivot, no? With no explanation?
Remember how much Koch and right-wing money was then being poured into the scheme to capture and control the Supreme Court? As of March 2022, it was over $580 million. Clearly capturing the Court was a Koch top priority.
Remember in August of 2015 how Trump hated them back? He mocked his rivals in the primary, calling them “puppets,” going out to the Koch annual political gathering (yes, the one Clarence Thomas shows up at), to kiss their ring.
Remember how they hated Trump, saying in 2016 that Trump is a “terrible role model” and that Trump’s idea to create a national registry for Muslims was “Nazi Germany” and “monstrous.”
Remember when Trump first ran, how the most powerful political force on the Republican side was the Koch political operation? Americans for Prosperity and the associated armada of Koch-funded, coordinated front groups?
The tale of Trump and “his” justices — you need to understand this to understand what went down at the Supreme Court. The commonly understood story is wrong.
So here we go 🧵
The problem with solving the climate crisis isn’t lack of public support. It’s fossil fuel influence in Congress.
A lawyer like Emil Bove shouldn’t be able to dodge congressional oversight by claiming certain privileges. And yet…
Total rollover by Republicans who showed up for Bove; total stonewall of Democrats’ questions by Bove; Bondi and Blanche show up for added pressure.
MAGA hack Mike Davis says that Emil Bove will make an “excellent” circuit court judge.
Here are some other things Mike Davis says:
To be clear, GOP AGs ARE the fossil fuel industry, providing free, taxpayer-funded legal services to their (and RAGA’s) big political donors.
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
Republicans want a national abortion ban, but they can’t pass it outright, so they’re building one piece-by-piece.
It started 3 years ago with the Dobbs decision— but now they’re trying to go even further.
Together, we’re fighting to make sure this is one puzzle they never finish.
Big milestone for REGENT Craft and the Ocean State – and a world first!
Next stop: full flight. Bravo, REGENT!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Gs...
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade three years ago, we’ve seen intensifying attacks on women’s reproductive freedom across the country causing irreparable harm & even death. (1/2)
Watch this space — and bring your popcorn.
One observer: “Justice Jackson’s dissent here is kind of channeling Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. He could have ghostwritten this.”
Actually, we’re just seeing the same pretty obvious thing.
Read the KBJ dissent. It is the strongest statement yet from within, about this results-oriented Court’s favoritism to corporate, wealthy and polluting interests. Kavanaugh tries to bat it away in a single sentence, but it’s too demonstrably true to be so easily dismissed.
The 7-2 decision is from Justice Kavanaugh. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson dissented.
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
It’s a problem that Trump used Title 10 to activate the Guard in CA. And Noem admitted the real motivation is to “liberate” the city from its democratically elected government. The Guard is not President Trump’s personal army.
The key point here is that if Title 10 status is used domestically, the Guard may NOT perform law enforcement functions unless an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act applies. Anti-Trump protests don’t fit the bill.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History789 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
789 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 32 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 32 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (40-59) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 123 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 123 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-52) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2026-04-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-46) |
| 2026-04-13 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-44) |
| 2026-03-26 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-26 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (53-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-25 | S.J. Res. 103 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-03-25 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-25 | S.J. Res. 107 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-24 | S.J. Res. 116 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 116 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-24 | S. 1383 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | S. 1383 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | — | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-03-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-47) |
| 2026-03-23 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2026-03-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2026-03-22 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-03-21 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (41-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-21 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (49-41, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-20 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Rejected (47-37, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-18 | S.J. Res. 118 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 118 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-17 | S. 1383 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2026-03-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-03-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2026-03-12 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-12 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (89-10) |
| 2026-03-11 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (82-11, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-11 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (84-10) |
| 2026-03-10 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (89-9, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-10 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (71-29) |
| 2026-03-09 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (68-28) |
| 2026-03-05 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-04 | S.J. Res. 104 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 104 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-04 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (90-8) |
| 2026-03-02 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (84-6, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-02-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (57-33) |
| 2026-02-26 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-34) |
| 2026-02-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2026-02-25 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2026-02-24 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-02-12 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-02-12 | H.J. Res. 142 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (49-47) |
| 2026-02-11 | H.J. Res. 142 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-02-10 | S.J. Res. 95 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-51) |
| 2026-02-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2026-02-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-02-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-47) |
| 2026-02-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
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.