If it would be unseemly for a gentleman or gentlelady to call out a colleague for having their hand, or their friends’ hands, in the gentleman’s or gentlelady’s pocket, is it not worse to have put that hand in the pocket in the first place?
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 — 840
Yes33%
No64%
Present0%
Not Voting4%
Party align95%
Cross-party4%
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 · 90 sponsored · 229 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Jackson may have come to the Court sharing those obvious concerns. If so, she had a running start on noticing the mischief. She may choose not to look at the Men in Black Neuralyzer and disappear the awareness she brought of the mischief at the Court. Nor should she.
Their discretion, decorum and “collegiality” have limits — and should have limits. Truth and candor are also judicial virtues.
KBJ comes from the district and circuit courts, where many judges are concerned about the mischief surrounding the Supreme Court. It’s happening in plain view. Judges are not idiots.
What if a colleague uses your “collegiality” as a strategic tactic, like a pick on a basketball court, deliberately for advantage? Surely, the coin of collegiality has a flip-side obligation to behave in such a way that your colleague’s collegiality is never abused.
She has begun looking at interests, and motives, and connections. She’s begun to point behind the curtain at what “collegiality” obscures.
Justice Jackson has begun looking at patterns, and noticing what types of parties tend to win, and which tend to lose. She has noticed procedural discrepancies.
These are all unseemly things to discuss, indecorous, and not at all “collegial.” But if they are true, should they not be discussed? How much mischief happening in plain view in the courthouse should a justice ignore in the interest of “collegiality”?
What if flotillas of secretly-funded amici curiae appear before the Court and sing in conspicuous harmony, and win with conspicuous frequency, and the Court makes little to no effort to enforce its own rules about amicus disclosure about their financing and coordination?
What if we are in a time when novel judicial doctrines, reverse-engineered for happy results for certain special interests, are grown and fertilized in special-interest-funded legal hothouses and then make their way through the Court to become the law of the land?
What if we are in a time when favored parties and litigants win victories with statistically astounding regularity? And justices are feted at organizational fund-raising dinners where those statistically-astounding winners convene?
And sheltered behind the weakest ethics review of any court in the land whenever the gifts program is challenged?
What if we are in a time when a billionaires’ gifts program has given certain justices ‘lifestyles of the rich and famous’ and they have reciprocated with favorable rulings?
What if we are in a time when a billionaire-funded scheme has spent decades trying to pack the Court with billionaire-agreeable justices, so as to “capture” the Court in the sense of “regulatory capture” or “agency capture” — and what if the billionaires have finally succeeded?
But what if we’re not in ordinary times?
All of which is well and good — in ordinary times. It’s akin to members of Congress calling each other “the distinguished gentleman” or the “distinguished gentlelady,” to maintain decorum and avoid events like the caning of Senator Sumner.
One of the internal traditions of the Court is “collegiality.” First, you’re there for life, so you may as well get along. Second, issues come and issues go, and an ally in one case is an opponent in another. Third, the Court thinks of itself as a stately institution, hence decorum matters.
What's up with Justice Jackson? She started making her mark and speaking out early, and some of her dissents are so pointed Kagan and Sotomayor don’t even join them. The far right is out for her, and even Republican justices are getting snarky.
So what's up? Here’s my take 🧵
If “physics sees through all lies perfectly,” why did you align yourself with the climate deniers?
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History840 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
840 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-12-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-12-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-12-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-44) |
| 2025-12-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Nomination Confirmed (57-32) |
| 2025-12-04 | S. Res. 520 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (43-37, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-12-04 | H.J. Res. 131 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (49-45) |
| 2025-12-03 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (63-34) |
| 2025-12-03 | S.J. Res. 91 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (49-47) |
| 2025-12-03 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (57-41) |
| 2025-12-03 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-40) |
| 2025-12-02 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (60-39) |
| 2025-12-02 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (61-36) |
| 2025-12-02 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-12-01 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-41) |
| 2025-11-20 | H.J. Res. 130 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (51-43) |
| 2025-11-19 | S.J. Res. 76 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-51) |
| 2025-11-19 | S.J. Res. 89 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-11-19 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (66-32) |
| 2025-11-18 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (65-32) |
| 2025-11-10 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Passed (60-40) |
| 2025-11-10 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-40, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-11-10 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (60-40) |
| 2025-11-10 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-40, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-11-10 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (76-24) |
| 2025-11-10 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Failed (47-53) |
| 2025-11-10 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Failed (47-53) |
| 2025-11-10 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (60-40) |
| 2025-11-09 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (60-40, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-11-07 | S. 3012 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (53-43, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-11-06 | S.J. Res. 90 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 90 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-11-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (57-43) |
| 2025-11-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (57-41) |
| 2025-11-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-11-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-11-04 | H.R. 5371 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-44, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-11-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 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) |
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.