Unless you see all the pieces of this sordid saga, it’s hard to understand how the Judicial Conference proceedings are being set up to spare DOJ having to answer questions under oath in Judge Boasberg’s contempt proceedings.
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.
The very same DOJ that will eventually be the subject of contempt proceedings will likely now seek to disqualify Judge Boasberg, based on the invented ethics complaint and the “created conflict” coming from the Chief Justice’s Judicial Conference.
On its face, the ethics complaint seems hogwash. But for DOJ, it tees up a challenge to Boasberg going forward with the contempt hearing whenever the stay is lifted. The lawyers’ term for that is “creating a conflict.”
(As a sidebar, the allegation is that Boasberg spoke generally about violation of court orders by the Trump administration. If that’s the complaint, in addition to being private, in an internal administrative venue not a judicial one, it has the benefit of being true.)
So with Bove safely rammed through our Judiciary Committee, now comes DOJ with an ethics complaint against Boasberg, based supposedly on comments he made in the private, administrative venue of the Judicial Conference.
The device the Trump appeals judges used to stall the contempt hearings was an “administrative stay,” a device customarily only lasting days or hours. This one lasted three months and counting. But they can’t stall it forever.
Judiciary Committee Republicans signaled loudly that Bove needn’t answer Democrats’ questions, except with “I don’t recall,” “that’s not public,” or “it would be inappropriate.” The fix was in. A courtroom would have been different.
We know from well-corroborated whistleblowers (ignored by Judiciary Committee Republicans in their stampede) that had the contempt hearing gone forward, there is abundant reason to believe it would have gone badly for Emil Bove.
Bove was teed up to become a Trump judge, and in an AMAZING coincidence, two Trump judges on the Court of Appeals stalled the contempt proceedings, allowing Bove to be rushed through confirmation without that factual record of contempt.
At the center of the mischief was Trump thug lawyer Emil Bove, who would have been a center of attention, and possibly found a contemnor, in contempt hearings, where testimony is taken under oath under penalty of perjury, and with cross-examination.
Federal judges, particularly senior and respected ones, aren’t used to being conned, tricked or lied to, particularly not by the government. DOJ’s conduct in the deportation proceedings caused Boasberg to find probable cause of criminal contempt.
The saga begins with the much-reported battle over illegal deportations that played out in federal court, in the courtroom of Chief Judge Boasberg of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, a respected veteran of decades on the bench.
Why did I send this letter to the Chief Justice?
So he’d understand the full scenario that just touched the Judicial Conference (the administrative body of judges that oversees the operations of the Judicial Branch), which he convenes and chairs.
🧵
Turns out that disinvestment from failing fossil fuel wasn’t “ESG” after all. It was economics, and fiduciary duty.
Trump's Big, Beautiful-for-Billionaires Bill will raise your energy prices.
@heinrich.senate.gov and I explain how:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN9O...
“On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump promised to bring energy prices down…But electricity prices are still going up, and Trump’s signature legislative accomplishment [the Beautiful For Billionaires Bill] is likely to raise prices further.”
Yup.
I can’t wait to hear more lectures about the debt from this crowd. So sincere. So credible.
Reposted bySenator Sheldon Whitehouse
The reality is: our communities are facing stronger hurricanes, more frequent floods, and near-constant extreme temps because of climate change.
We can feel it.
Ignoring or manipulating the facts won't change that. We owe it to our kids to act— not pretend like nothing's wrong.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | S.J. Res. 185 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 185 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (52-38) |
| 2026-05-19 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (57-38) |
| 2026-05-18 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (46-43) |
| 2026-05-14 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 130 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 141 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-50) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 132 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (48-52) |
| 2026-05-13 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2026-05-13 | S. Res. 526 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (99-0, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-05-13 | S.J. Res. 163 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 163 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (49-50) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-45) |
| 2026-05-12 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-05-11 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-44) |
| 2026-05-11 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Resolution Agreed to (46-45) |
| 2026-04-30 | S.J. Res. 184 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 184 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-30 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 99 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-50) |
| 2026-04-29 | S.J. Res. 139 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-29 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (59-39) |
| 2026-04-28 | S.J. Res. 124 (119th) | Point of Order S.J.Res. 124 | NO | NO | ✓ | Point of Order Well Taken (51-47) |
| 2026-04-28 | S. Res. 690 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2026-04-27 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Accept House changes | NO | NO | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (50-48) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-49) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-50) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Padilla Amdt. No. 4855) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (46-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Sanders Amdt. No. 5159) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-52) |
| 2026-04-23 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (25-73) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Markey Amdt. No. 5001) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hawley Amdt. No. 4794) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (50-48, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-23 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Kennedy Amdt. No. 5414) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Alsobrooks Amdt. No. 5294) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 4956) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hirono Amdt. No. 4884) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (98-0) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Ossoff Amdt. No. 4897) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Lujan Amdt. No. 4798) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 4799) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-50, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-04-22 | S.J. Res. 114 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 114 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (46-51) |
| 2026-04-21 | S. Con. Res. 33 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2026-04-20 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (47-46) |
| 2026-04-16 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-48) |
| 2026-04-16 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (50-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2026-04-15 | H.J. Res. 140 (119th) | Kill the motion | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2026-04-15 | S.J. Res. 138 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 138 | NO | YES | ✕↔ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (36-63) |
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.
Page 1 / 16Next →