I want to see the Judiciary Committee strong. But it’s setting dangerous precedents.
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 — 772
Yes31%
No66%
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 · 87 sponsored · 209 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
The parallel crash danger is climate risk crashing insurance markets, which crashes mortgage markets, which crashes property values, which crashes the economy, 2008-style. Climate denial is getting increasingly economically dangerous. Indeed, it’s already begun.
Instead of managing an orderly adjustment, we now face the prospect of an abrupt one — in common parlance, a “crash.”
This is the “carbon bubble” risk that we’ve irresponsibly allowed to grow, in order to serve the political interests of the fossil fuel industry and protect its inflated pricing and excessive profits.
The stranded assets of those producers quickly achieve negative value, workforce shrinks suddenly, revenues collapse, and economic shock cascades into the larger economy.
That race to a new market-based price, from the artificially propped-up OPEC price, will likely strand expensive producers like the United States and Russia.
Cartel pricing only works when members stick to it. Once defection begins, it makes sense for other producers to follow. The defector sets their own new price, the market is attracted to that lower price, and other producers have to abandon the inflated cartel price or lose sales.
This is commonly referred to in economic publications as the “carbon bubble” bursting. Look up “carbon bubble.” It has been well warned of for decades. (While you’re at it, look up “peak oil.” The concepts relate.)
The rub is that Gulf nations can profitably sell oil well below the price that Big Oil requires to be profitable in America. It becomes in their interest to unload inventory — as much as possible, as much as they can sell at their preferred price — racking up sales while they still can profitably.
Everyone needs to think through what this could mean. OPEC props up an international oil price that makes U.S. oil production profitable. As the world economy approaches “peak oil,” the logic to defect becomes inexorable: selling what you can while you still can, at some point makes economic sense.
I’m headed to the Senate Floor to ask my colleagues if we can all agree on this one, simple truth: sea levels are rising.
Quiet part out loud.
“Project,” quadruple “dissent,” and no “respectfully” are a strong signal of being truly fed up. Deservedly.
Today’s “now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act” discards decades of binding Court precedent – including a ruling from just three years ago – and big bipartisan majorities in Congress in a project to suppress Democratic votes and tilt elections for Republicans.
In addition to jeopardizing the voting rights of millions of Americans, the Callais decision is just more proof that billionaire and fossil-fuel dark money built this Supreme Court to obediently serve the political interests of the Republican party.
In doing so, the Court effectively rewrote the Voting Rights Act as enacted by Congress and ignored a mountain of factual findings, substituting its preferred facts to reach this desired outcome.
Today, the right-wing Supreme Court supermajority finished what it started over a decade ago – in Justice Kagan’s words, “a judicial project to destroy the Voting Rights Act.”
The captured court is delivering for its fossil fuel captors.
“We must also reflect on our shared responsibility to safeguard nature, our most precious and irreplaceable asset.”
Thank you for your advocacy for our planet, Your Majesty.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-07-22 | H.R. 3944 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2025-07-22 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-47) |
| 2025-07-22 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2025-07-22 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-47) |
| 2025-07-21 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (44-43) |
| 2025-07-17 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (46-36) |
| 2025-07-17 | — | End debate | NOT_VOTING | NO | — | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-34) |
| 2025-07-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (57-31) |
| 2025-07-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-40) |
| 2025-07-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-43) |
| 2025-07-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-07-17 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Passed (51-48) |
| 2025-07-17 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-07-17 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-07-17 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-07-17 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-07-17 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-51) |
| 2025-07-17 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Recommit Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Recommit Rejected (47-50) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-51) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Recommit Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Recommit Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Recommit Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Recommit Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Send back to committee | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Recommit Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-07-16 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-07-15 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea) |
| 2025-07-15 | H.R. 4 (119th) | Motion to Discharge H.R. 4 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Agreed to (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea) |
| 2025-07-15 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-47) |
| 2025-07-15 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-46) |
| 2025-07-15 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-07-15 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-07-15 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (69-30) |
| 2025-07-14 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-28) |
| 2025-07-14 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (46-42) |
| 2025-07-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2025-07-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2025-07-10 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2025-07-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-45) |
| 2025-07-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (49-46) |
| 2025-07-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-44) |
| 2025-07-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-43) |
| 2025-07-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-07-09 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-43) |
| 2025-07-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (47-42) |
| 2025-07-08 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (47-41) |
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.