Trump Draws Line: No Bills Signed Until SAVE Act Passes
“It must be done immediately. It supersedes everything else. MUST GO TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE. I, as President, will not sign other Bills until this is passed.”
President Donald Trump took to Truth Social on Sunday morning to say he will not sign any other bills until the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act is passed by the Senate. He wrote:
It must be done immediately. It supersedes everything else. MUST GO TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE. I, as President, will not sign other Bills until this is passed, AND NOT THE WATERED DOWN VERSION – GO FOR THE GOLD: MUST SHOW VOTER I.D. & PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP: NO MAIL-IN BALLOTS EXCEPT FOR MILITARY – ILLNESS, DISABILITY, TRAVEL: NO MEN IN WOMEN’S SPORTS: NO TRANSGENDER MUTILIZATION FOR CHILDREN! DO NOT FAIL!!! President DONALD J. TRUMP
The bill has cleared the House but remains stalled in the Senate, where it falls short of the 60 votes required to invoke cloture and end debate under current filibuster rules.
Republicans face two procedural paths. They could eliminate the legislative filibuster outright — a move some in the conference resist, wary of the precedent it would set when Democrats next control the chamber.
Alternatively, they could force a return to the “talking filibuster,” requiring opponents to hold the floor and sustain debate physically. Once the debate collapses, the measure could advance to a final vote and pass with a simple majority.
With more than 80% of Americans backing the legislation, opposition from any member of Congress — elected to represent their constituents — is difficult to justify.
🚨 BREAKING: In a stunning blow to Democrats, 76% PERCENT of BLACK Americans want nationwide voter ID — in other words, the SAVE America Act
White voters: 85% want it
Latino voters: 82% want itAnother leftist narrative just got decimated.
Pass voter ID. GET THIS PASSED. 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/HFnVtlccvh
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) February 3, 2026
It’s clear to see why, with the possible exception of Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), no Democratic senators support the SAVE Act. It would make it harder to cheat in elections.
Far more difficult to grasp, however, is the hesitation — and in some cases outright refusal — of certain Republican senators to pull out all the stops to see this important legislation across the finish line.
On Saturday, Fox News released a list of Republican senators either “opposed or skeptical” of using the talking filibuster to pass the SAVE Act that includes: Sens. John Cornyn (TX), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Katie Britt (AL), John Curtis (UT), Kevin Cramer (ND), Thom Tillis (NC), and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (SD).
[I would add Mitch McConnell to this list.]
Notably, responding on X, Britt said her inclusion on this list was “blatantly false.” She noted she’d been working with Sen. Mike Lee (UT) to find the votes to pass the bill.
This is blatantly false. I have been working with @BasedMikeLee to find the votes and path forward to pass the SAVE America Act, which includes the talking filibuster. https://t.co/HZTbL6TysN
— Senator Katie Boyd Britt (@SenKatieBritt) March 7, 2026
🚨 BREAKING: Fox drops list of GOP senators OPPOSED or SKEPTICAL of using a talking filibuster for pass the SAVE America Act
This would be the only plausible way to do it without 60 votes
– John Cornyn
– Lisa Murkowski
– Katie Britt
– John Curtis
– Kevin Cramer
– Thom Tillis
-… pic.twitter.com/vkk83RH7u4— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 7, 2026
Thune is reportedly most concerned about “not having enough GOP senators to stand unified against a Dem amendment onslaught.”
Thune’s hesitation has become a source of mounting frustration for conservatives who believe this moment demands resolve, not caution. The SAVE Act is not some fringe or experimental proposal. It enjoys overwhelming public support. If legislation with this level of backing does not merit a procedural fight, what does?
The political reality is that while Republicans currently control both chambers of Congress, that control is anything but permanent. The House majority is narrow. The Senate map is unpredictable. Waiting for a more convenient moment is not a strategy; it is surrender by delay. Opportunities like this do not linger.
There is reason to believe the bill could pass. Cornyn, who is locked in a contentious senate primary against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, has just expressed his support for the bill. Although Cornyn finished last week’s primary with 41.9% of the vote, slightly ahead of Paxton with 40.7%, because neither candidate surpassed the 50% threshold, the race will be decided in a May 26 runoff. [Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-TX) finished last with 13.5% of the vote.]
In the interest of avoiding another three months of red on red mudslinging that would weaken the winner in the general election, Trump announced he will endorse one of the candidates soon and ask the other to withdraw from the race. It was speculated that if he endorses Cornyn, the senator might become a bit more enthusiastic about passing the SAVE Act via the talking filibuster.
And that appears to be happening. Upon seeing his name on Fox News’ list of Republican senators opposed or skeptical of passing the bill, Cornyn responded, “Contrary to fake news in the twitterverse: I have supported the Save America Act from day one. I will happily support the ‘talking filibuster’ if that’s what it takes to pass this into law.”
Contrary to fake news in the twitterverse: I have supported the Save America Act from day one. I will happily support the “talking filibuster” if that’s what it takes to pass this into law. @realDonaldTrump
— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) March 7, 2026
Noting Cornyn’s sudden support for the talking filibuster, his opponent replied, “I made Cornyn more conservative in the last 3 days than he’s been in the last 24 years.”
True.
I made Cornyn more conservative in the last 3 days than he's been in the last 24 years.
Yet, flip-flop Cornyn's still too cowardly to support abolishing the filibuster to get it done and to call out his best friend McConnell for opposing the bill.
The President deserves better. https://t.co/NTkZBr4S63
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) March 7, 2026
Passage of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act would stand as the Trump administration’s most consequential domestic policy achievement of 2026.
On Friday, actor and political influencer James Woods posted on X that he was so upset over Thune’s refusal to pass the SAVE Act, he was changing his party affiliation from Republican Party to Independent. He called Thune and his group “uniparty traitors.”
I am done with the Republican Party.
Between this and Thune’s refusal to pass the SAVE Act, I’m done with these uniparty traitors.
I’m changing my party affiliation to Independent. No wonder President Trump is fighting an uphill battle every day. https://t.co/Qp8zr4y4gA
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) March 6, 2026
The SAVE Act can and must pass. Trump signaled on Sunday that he will continue to pressure Thune and other GOP senators to employ the talking filibuster to make it happen. Thune must use his influence to gain the support of a handful of Republican holdouts.
The question is no longer whether the SAVE Act can pass. It is whether Thune is willing to fight for it — or whether he will disregard the clear will of the people and let it die through inaction.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
AGAIN: NO LIKE BUTTON!!!!! 🙂
Of course if Cornyn wins the GOP nomination he will likely fall back on his usual general election shtick of tough talk about the border but deliberately vague about the means to do it.
Nor would I trust any newfound support for SAVE or any other efforts to secure elections.
Wonder how much Dark money is flowing into these senators secret swiss bank accounts? Definitely 10’s of millions.
Go back to the talking filibuster. The ability of the minority to stifle action has simply gone too far. It might not make it through the filibuster, but at least then we’ll know.
The SAVE act is being billed on the left as preventing women from voting. This is a real problem: The “Real ID” requirements caused an uproar in PA and NJ because women had to show up to an appointment with marraige and birth certificates. What Thune is afraid of is the effect on the mid terms if GOP does not somehow stop the hyperbole.
That’s because the left believes that women and blacks are too stupid to obtain birth certificates and women to get marriage licenses.
I am 65. I have had my birth certificate in my possession since I joined the military at age 17. Renewed my passport consistently since 1978.
If women and blacks can’t get these documents to get what’s needed to vote, then I agree that these people are too stupid to vote
I did know someone who had great difficulty proving her married name, because her marriage had taken place 50+ years earlier on a US Air Force base in Japan, and the USAF couldn’t seem to find any record of it to reissue her marriage certificate.
And I had a French friend who was born in Algeria, and the original record of his birth was destroyed in the war there, so he had trouble getting a birth certificate reissued.
Still sounds like something that can eventually be remedied as long as one doesn’t wait until the day or week of to attempt said remedy.
Also, how do these people get I9 employment verification?
Anecdotal and not systematic. SAVE’s detractors are claiming it will systematically prevent identifiable segments of the population from voting. This is simply untrue.
My wife had a tough time changing her name a few years back because of Covid.
The office in Santa Fe was always closed.
I hazard to say that the total number of cases such as those you’ve provided are likely statistically insignificant.
End debate. What a joke. NO ONE is debating anything.
It doesn’t matter. Legislative debates rarely change anyone’s mind, but they still have to happen. And in the senate, even if you do get 60 votes for cloture the other side still gets 30 hours of further debate, plus they can try moving amendments.
Getting certified copies of a marriage certificate can be a pain in the tush. My MIL (of blessed memory) had to get hers from 50 plus years back. Fortunately she was married in a county 50 miles away. It seems there could be a sensible solution that if the married name has been used on multiple legal documents such as driver’s license and mortgages and social security the proving when and why of the change should not be needed.
I avoided all this because I never legally changed my name when I married. It turned out to be a smart move and has saved me a lot of hassle.
If Democrats hadn’t handed out drivers licences to illegal aliens then there wouldn’t have been a problem with using that as ID.
Nope. Legal aliens have always been able to get drivers’ licenses, ever since those were invented. So a license has never been proof of entitlement to vote.
And the licenses for aliens, legal or illegal, don’t help them register to vote.
Massachusetts registers you when you get a license.
Only if you confirm under oath that you’re a citizen. Aliens get licenses routinely and are not registered to vote. Of course they don’t make you prove it, but almost no state does, and even those that do have to accept the federal form that doesn’t require proof. That’s what the SAVE Act is supposed to change.
Well now, that’s gonna upset the DC establishment apple cart. By returning to the speaking filibuster rule there’s a practical time limit on delaying/obstructionism. Once the opposition has had their bite at the apple to speak (I think its two turns each) the debate ends and an up/down vote held. This means no more show/sham vote Kabuki nonsense in the Senate where the establishment pretends to try pass X only to come up short of 60 votes and go back to their constituents claiming they ‘need more $ for their leadership PAC’ to get 60 Senators elected that are needed to pass something.
The two-speech rule gives each senator two speeches on the same motion per legislative day, each of which can be as long as the senator wants.
See this summary for the practical difficulties of enforcing a real filibuster. It’s not something you want to do all the time, but for something as important as this it’s worth doing.
It forces them to stand and speak until they run out of steam. The younger Senators might be able to go long but the aged and infirm? Not so much. I suspect ten days to two weeks is the practical outside limit to keep it up. A second benefit is the interruption of the legislative calendar. Golly the Senate might have to stay in DC, prioritize genuinely important legislative activities v a Tuesday to Friday ‘work week’ with many multi week ‘breaks’.
The other benefit is the visual. When the opposition isn’t ‘debating’ which is the true point of the filibuster, but reading the phone book or rambling about non germaine issues the public will see it. Some number of voters will finally see the opposition effort for what it is, blind ideological obstruction to thwart passage and not a good faith effort to persuade through honest debate.
Enforcement is not that big a burden, IMO. In any case far preferable to the current nonsense.
As I said, each senator gets to speak twice per legislative day. So 47 Democrats can keep it going for a long time. Each one doesn’t have to speak that long. Even the oldest can surely manage a couple of hours at a time.
The Republicans have to be able to prevent the legislative day from changing, because every time it does the Dems get another two speeches each.
They also have to keep a quorum present, because if there isn’t one the Dem speaking can call for a quorum, and take a break from speaking until one is found. And if there’s ever a majority of Dems in the chamber they can vote to adjourn, which makes it a new day.
So it’s not a simply thing to do. Not something that one does casually. But in this case it’s worth it, and they should absolutely do it. This is important enough to justify all the effort and time.
It is always worth forcing the person/group making a threat in an action to follow through. Giving in to extortion is not a recipe for success.
Beyond that if there’s gonna be a full quorum then enforce the remaining rules, particularly on whether the speaking is germaine. Take a quick vote to remove floor privileges for tumors who violate the rules during a filibuster. Deny anyone but Senators access onto the floor. No staff bringing in a coffee. Be jerks about it. Heck consider locking down the chamber no entry and no exit for Senators during a filibuster until it ends. Rule changes require a simple majority and some can be done by the Majority leader.
There’s no requirement that debate be germane.
Why isn’t it being passed?
Because they don’t WANT to pass it.
It really is that simple.
so we have to have another layer of law(s) to support the dictum that only citizens of a country may vote in that countries elections!!??
and the states are still allowed to( if the citizens let them..and apparently they do in many cases) let non citizens vote in local elections which then gives fraud yet another avenue to travel to the federal elections when sympathetic poll watchers look away as non citizens vote cause like
whose gonna catch them!!!????
“MUTILIZATION”
Ya gotta love him.
Yes, but if the SAVE act passes, married women will be unable to vote. (Says the leftists, as dwb notes above.)
This has just enough plausibility to ignite the gullible. My wife’s last name on our marriage certificate does not match her last name on her birth certificate because it has her last name from her previous marriage. The leftist news is claiming that the SAVE act, possibly coupled with legislation in some states (namely ours) will require that all voters will be required to re-register in order to vote.
Trump says, “MUST SHOW VOTER I.D. & PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP”. Somebody needs to throw some water on the fire. It’s not a good idea to piss off nearly half the population.
By their insistence on their right to cheat (among other crimes), the leftists are pushing us toward the Mark of the Beast.
It won’t, but it should. There are many people registered who shouldn’t be, and the rolls need to be cleaned up.
Yep. Conduct a 100% purge of the voter registration rolls in mid Dec ’26, with a review/double check before new year’s day to make sure its empty.
Then do voter registration by birth month only in ’27. Then in Jan of ’28 go back to normal walk ins and appointments for everyone. Require a searchable data base so that any oddities are easily found, track which clerk or particular offices have abnormal number of oddities like birth years making them 100+ using a non residential address or a dozen people registering at same address. Require the physical address be the same as on the DL. Slight inconvenience. Big gains in reliability of voter registration data. More trust in system.
A dozen people registering at same address is not necessarily suspicious. Before complaining about it you need to do the legwork and go see what sort of building it is, and how many people could plausibly live there.
It was a major embarrassment to the Trump case when one of his incompetent advocates testified to the GA senate that a particular address was an obvious center of fraud, and one of the Dem senators recognized the address and pointed out that there were easily 100+ people living there, so the number of registered voters was reasonable. This one incident went a long way to discrediting the Trump case in GA. A stupid mistake that should never have been made.
A.dozen people registered should definitely call a halt to further registration using that address until investigation is concluded about size of residence, zoning, occupancy limits and fire codes. If it is a single family home 3 bd/2ba something is definitely wrong with one or more of the registrations listing that address as the physical address of their residence.
Got more info on that claim? There’s no single residential address for 100 people that would be valid that I can think of. Even a homeless shelter wouldn’t really fit the bill b/c they generally require them cleared out each morning and are 1st come/1st served in the Evening so it wouldn’t qualify as a valid permanent address for a ‘residence’ as.most State laws require. Even if they didn’t clear out each am it would be beyond belief if every voter registered at that ‘residential address’ was currently still AT that address…not one of those 100 died in fight over ripple, no ODs, not one of those 100 now in County Jail or Prison? Not one of them cleaned up, got a job and studio APT? Found a Hooker with a heart of gold and moved in? Failing to update the physical address on voter registration creates an invalid registration and an ineligible voter.
Have you heard of apartment buildings? Apparently this guy hadn’t. It was a large apartment building.
You can’t cut off registration based on an assumption; you have to actually check.
Then there’s the case of US citizens living abroad, who are entitled to vote in federal elections from their last address in the USA, even though someone else lives there now.
(Also, homeless people are entitled to vote; as I understand it they usually assign them all to the county board of election’s address, but such a person can also be registered at his last known address.)
Sure have heard about apartments. When I lived in an apartment my address reflected the unit b/c it is a.physical address just like a 911 address. So it was list something like
101 Main St, Unit 7
Anytown, USA 12345
Most States require a distinct physical address for a valid voter registration. The street address of the apartment complex doesn’t cut it. If the police, fire dept or EMS couldn’t get to your kitchen b/c they didn’t know what unit to enter the address is insufficient. Pretending individual apartments or town homes or condos don’t have individual addresses is a bad faith excuse.
People often leave the apartment number off addresses, and the mailman has to distribute the mail to the boxes based on the name. Before you make an accusation of fraud you have to do the legwork and check it out.
Milhouse,
This isn’t complicated. Where there is a requirement to a valid physical residential address to link to a particular voter and an incomplete/invalid address is provided…. the registration of that voter is not legally sufficient. Any ballot cast by that voter is invalid. That’s fraud.
As you may recall I didn’t demand summary execution for the 4th voter attempting to use the same physical residential address as three others…. I said it should trigger a pause while it is investigated. That might be really quick or time consuming depending on whether the jurisdiction has good faith effort to maintain accurate voter registration lists.
First step would be ID the voters at the address in the data base. Then look at County tax records. That tells us the zoning (commercial/residential), the property description (single family, multi-family, office building, vacant unimproved lot). If the date of birth is odd such as showing one or more over 95 the County vital records can find death certificates. A query to SSA asking is Joe Smith SSA # age 95 address X alive and drawing benefits at the address would be easy to set up.
In sum there’s a good deal of data already collected and available to conduct a cursory search. Some very easy, A dozen folks listing a one bedroom apartment, a UPS store mail box or vacant lot as their physical residential address is one among many easy, quick checks that can be done on the spot or with very little delay.
This talking point mystifies me. Why would Republicans want to keep married women from voting? Married women are more likely to vote Republican. I would guess, but have no data, that married women that change their names are even more more likely to vote Republican.
fine point.
It doesn’t have to make sense. They’re addressing their own base, which will lap it up.
Lots of divorced women out there with divorce rates on a first marriage above 40%, second marriage above 50% and even higher for 3rd marriage.
It’s really not a big deal to get a marriage cert to go along with a birth certificate and show continuity. Its one additional step and even then only if they changed their maiden name. Would also impact the simple men who chose to use a hyphenated last name with their wife’s maiden name.
IMO this argument is just whining about accountability and having to ‘do the right thing’ or get hemmed up. Like some idiot who gets mad their car is booted and towed over unpaid tickets, then can’t get it out of impound b/c their vehicle registration was cancelled b/c they didn’t renew their IN policy. They pitch an unholy fit about a cascade of failures they created for themselves.
They should definitely make the Dems do an actual filibuster, not the “Arthur Dent” virtual filibuster* that has become common in the last few decades.*
After all, what’s the down side? If we make them do it then in the future when we threaten to filibuster they’ll make us do it too?! Yes, and so they should! Why would that be a problem for us? The filibuster should be reserved for issues that at least 41 senators feel very strongly about, so strongly that they’re willing to actually filibuster it, not just threaten to do so.
But on the other matter James Wood mentioned in passing, Nancy Mace is an idiot. Just a stupid person who doesn’t understand what’s happening around her. She doesn’t seem to understand that Ilhan Omar immigrated as a little girl, which means she was incapable of engaging in any fraud, and her immigration has no connection to her subsequent sham “marriage” to her brother, decades later.
—–
* HHGTTG, ch. 1:
“Yes? Hello?” he called. “Has Mr. Dent come to his senses yet?”
“Can we for the moment,” called Ford, “assume that he hasn’t?”
“Well?” sighed Mr. Prosser.
“And can we also assume,” said Ford, “that he’s going to be staying here all day?”
“So?”
“So all your men are going to be standing around all day doing nothing?”
“Could be, could be . . .”
“Well, if you’re resigned to doing that anyway, you don’t actually need him to lie here all the time, do you?”
“What?”
“You don’t,” said Ford patiently, “actually need him here.”
Mr. Prosser thought about this.
“Well no, not as such . . .” he said, “not exactly need . . .” Prosser was worried. He thought that one of them wasn’t making a lot of sense.
Ford said, “So if you would just like to take it as read that he’s actually here, then he and I could slip off down to the pub for half an hour. How does that sound?”
Mr. Prosser thought it sounded perfectly potty.
“That sounds perfectly reasonable,” he said in a reassuring tone of voice, wondering who he was trying to reassure.
“And if you want to pop off for a quick one yourself later on,” said Ford, “we can always cover up for you in return.”
Nice.
Thune would give Marvin a migraine.
No, but if she married her brother to assist his immigration, that’s still an immigration crime. Whether a conviction for such a crime can be applied to denaturalize someone whose own naturalization isn’t involved in the offense is another matter. Being convicted of the crime could likely see her removed from Congress (even if she could get elected again). The process is the punishment, and it’s about time Bondi started meting out such punishment.
It is a crime, but it’s far too late to prosecute her for it, so there’s no chance of a conviction. And she would never resign out of shame, nor would her fellow Dems ever expel her out of shame.
And no, even if she could be convicted it couldn’t possibly affect her naturalization, since it took place long after that. I have not yet seen even one serious suggestion that there was any irregularity with her naturalization, so it can’t ever be voided.
Mace, however, tried to subpoena Omar’s own immigration documents, which means she thinks there’s something she could use those documents for, which means she is completely unaware that Omar immigrated as a child. Which in turn means she’s stupid, since any congressman of normal intelligence would have found out such basic facts before trying to make trouble.
A talking filibuster imposes a real time limit if and only if you have a small number of senators involved in continuing the filibuster – the ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’ scenario. That’s not the case for the SAVE act, you have basically the entire Democratic caucus involved.
So, here’s how it goes. Dem Senator A gets up, speaks a few hours, yields to Dem Senator B. This is allowed – however, no senator may take the floor more than twice during the filibuster. BUT, if the session ends, that all resets and everyone can speak again. Here’s the rub – if they fall under quorum – less than half the Senate is present, the session ends, and restarts. So, the Democrats can go in and out, get some sleep while their friends are talking and then come in to relieve them. The entire Republican caucus must remain there or see things start over.
So, while the GOP is trapped listening to whatever speeches the Democrats want to give, the other Democrats can speechify to the media, go on talk shows, and berate the GOP free from any opposition.
Again, the talking filibuster is great if you have a few Senators opposed – but in that case you could clear the 60 vote cloture of the modern rules anyway. If you have 30 or 40 willing to join the filibuster, talking filibuster is worse than useless.
Talking filibuster has one nonprocedural advantage: the public gets to see the circus and hear the clowns honk on public TV. On an 80-20 issue, it may piss off enough of them to end the party.
Mostly true. One missing piece is the quorum call timeline and naps off to the side. Then there’s the person sitting in the chair presiding and making rulings who would normally be in the majority. If the d/prog don’t like his ruling they gotta come and vote on any ‘question’ or point of order… and to be a point of order there’s a second needed.
The other issue is the stand and speak requirement. Sorry any aged or infirm Senator, gotta rise to your feet and stay there to participate and if you can’t tough cookies. Same for rulings about germaine topics. If they start reading Cat in the Hat that’s not germaine and is disqualifying. Hold a simple vote to remove floor privileges for that Senator for 72 hours. Whittle down the numnwrs, make them keep it up for a couple weeks.
Finally there’s the issue of PO everyone. Peer pressure is real in a ‘group punishment’ sort of situation. For the SAVE act the d/prog might have the moxie and internal cohesion but then again public polls show overwhelming support for Save Act provisions ….and as the public watches the talking filibuster go on the public is gonna be expressing themselves as are donor class.
IMO forcing someone to ‘do the thing’ is important otherwise we give in to what is essentially extortion and ‘doing the thing’ always carries risks for the person or group otherwise they’d just go ahead and do it v making a threat in hopes that’s enough to get their way.
There is no requirement for senate debate to be germane. Senators are absolutely allowed to read Cat in the Hat, or the telephone book back when those existed.
Debate must be germane in the first three hours; amendments must be germane; and debate must be germane during the 30 additional hours’ debate that the minority gets after a successful cloture vote. But during normal debate they can speak about whatever they like.
Kinda. The majority can change the rules. Heck the presiding officer could call a quorum then lock everyone inside if he decides to…’out of an abundance of caution and the high tensions and public sentiment surrounding the debate’ or any other damn reason he wants to cite. If he can send the Senate Sergeant at Arms to compel attendance he can do that.
A change to the rules can itself be filibustered.
Kinda, you are presuming the presiding officer recognizes the Senator for the motion or doesn’t just say pound sand. Hardball is hardball, no whining about it when the presiding officer causes a Senator to flip out and be removed by the Sgt at arms taken into custody and held for psychological eval.
Yes. Hence the “Arthur Dent” filibuster. It’s too easy, so they get away with it. Making them actually do it would be a major PITA for the Reps, but would induce the Dems not to threaten it so often.
Plus the PITA creates ill will for ‘doing the thing’ b/c of social group dynamics. Some elderly Senators for too remain in the chamber for hours on end, soiling themselves would be pretty upsetting to their egos.
I don’t think this is the case. To end the session and start a new one requires an actual vote to adjourn, which requires a majority of those senators present.
But until a quorum is achieved the debate is paused, which means the Dem speaking gets a break. If the Reps don’t camp out in the chamber then as soon as there’s no quorum the Dem speaking will point it out and sit down.
Democrats just have to hold out long enough so that by the time the act is actually passed there isnt enough time to implement the law before the mid term elections.
Republicans just need to pretend long enough to support their partners on the Democrat side of the isle.
It’s probably already too late to implement it before this year’s midterms.
You are probably correct but let’s see how this shit show plays out!
I bet if this passes we will see the following, republican states will enforce the rule and democrats states won’t.
Then we will hear every excuse under the sun.
Why? Real ID is already a thing and had the same implementation compliance issues. Seems easy enough to use Real.ID. Here in Alabama non Citizen can’t get a State issued ‘Real ID’.
If some other States decided to corrupt their ‘real ID’ population of issued cards and database by allowing non Citizens to obtain a ‘real ID’….sucks to be them.
The answer to ’26 midterm is for the States to use the sign in at the physical polling place to require a non corrupted ‘real ID’. Or for those States too short sighted to prevent their database being corrupted require real ID + birth cert + marriage cert+ utility bill and conduct a screening.
Alternatively those short sighted States could simply say ‘golly this is too hard too fast to correct our own short sighted policies that make us non compliant with Federal Election law for Federal offices and they could use a State/local office only ballot that didn’t need to comply with Federal rules for electing of HoR, Senate and President. The non compliant States will have time before ’28 to get it fixed, though I’m sure they’ll be salty about not having seated HoR and Sen members from the ’26 mid terms. Probably need to add a provision to SAVE act that precludes filing seat vacancies created by State intransigence.
Congress can’t do that. When there are vacancies the governor is required to call a special election.
Which won’t be seated unless their election complies with Federal law for Federal elections which the Constitution grants Congress power to create.
They’d be Schrodinger’s Rep/Senator. ‘elected’ but in unlawful elections. Not sure the Gov could even call a new election either… On what basis would he do so? Can’t argue there’s a vacancy b/c his State would have held an election which didn’t comport with Federal law for Federal offices which is why the ‘winning candidates’ wouldn’t be seated …so there’s not a ‘vacancy’ but rather unseated Reps/Senators and unless the new election was gonna follow Federal law the outcome would be moot
The vast majority of American’s want this, period. If Congress does not pass the Save Act, they will pay the price.
No they won’t. The “public” has proved time and again that they’ll keep right on returning these morons to office because of name recognition or party affiliation, if nothing else.
Which is why primary challenges are important and why the establishment hates the thought of a legitimate challenge. TX is a pretty good example where roughly 60% of GoP primary voters voted against the establishment candidate Cornyn.
The senate majority can set the “standing filibuster” rules when rules change replacing or amending the current 60 vote cloture. They could set max time for each speaker and max times any speaker filibusters.
Am I wrong to not worry about old rules that were voted out decades ago?
The rules were not voted out. The rules don’t change until the senate changes them. Each senate inherits the rules from the previous senate. And no one wants to abolish the filibuster; the minority wants to keep using it, and the majority want it to still be there when they’re in the minority.
The Dems’ attempt to get rid of it the last time they had a majority failed, not because of Manchin and Sinema, but because the Dems didn’t want it either. The whole thing was just for show. Had Manchin and Sinema not stood up to stop it, Schumer would have found someone else to do so. Just enough to deprive it of a majority.