The Senate GOP and the SAVE Act
I’ve seen a lot of posts and comments around the internet expressing frustration with the GOP in the Senate for not yet passing the SAVE Act. It’s so important, according to just about everyone. It would codify as a federal matter many voting safeguards, such as IDs/proof of citizenship.
I agree that it’s important, and it would be wonderful if it were passed – although as soon as Democrats came to power they’d probably pass HR1, its mirror-image opposite.
And is it worthwhile to nuke the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act? Probably, many say. Plus, there’s little doubt the Democrats would end the filibuster – and will do it if they control the Senate – in order to finally pass HR1 after so many tries.
So, what’s the problem? Why not do it? Isn’t it just the usual stupidity, cowardice, and mendacity of the Republicans in the Senate (including of course McConnell and Murkowski), holding it back?
The Ruthless guys beg to differ. They’re very smart cookies, so it’s worth a listen. The clip is about 20 minutes long, but very informative and different from what you’ll hear elsewhere:
The reality is there are not 51 republican votes in the Senate for the SAVE Act. Whether or not McConnell is smothering the bill in committee, Thune doesn’t have the support of the caucus to maintain a quorum while democrats are forced to talk themselves out as Sen Lee and 38 others would propose the rest don’t want to do it. They don’t want to work late, eat pizza and sleep on cots while answering quorum calls until the filibuster breaks. Sad
For my info, what’s HR1? The only info-not that I looked THAT hard-seems to refer back to “ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL ACT”.
Democrats driving the country toward the abyss, while the McConnell faction in the Senate refuse to face up to what the democrat party has become.
“…the side that feels the lesser urge for peace will naturally get the better bargain.” Carl von Clausewitz
The democrats plan to do to the country what they’re doing in Virginia… and at that point, a ‘political’ solution will no longer be possible.
“War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” Carl von Clausewitz, On War
@Ken:For my info, what’s HR1?
“HR1” from 2019 when Dems had the House, reintroduced in 2021.
Ken @6:07pm: I think “HR-1” is being used as a short form of something like “first order of business” when Dems regain control of the House. Warning: I could be wrong.
OK— I’ve heard that some GOP big shots are somewhere between probably and almost certain that GOP will lose both the house and senate in the midterms, meaning that all progress at pushing the Trump reforms will come to a grinding halt. Not a happy thing to consider.
However, instead of pulling out all the stops and running a legislative blitzkrieg for the next 2 years, they are considering a study for a giant arch of some sort, and now they want to do a congressional insight (or some kind of inquiry) about Bad Bunny and the super bowl half-time. What is this?? Get your priorities straight, GOP.
I think “HR-1” is being used as a short form of something like “first order of business” when Dems regain control of the House.
Another Mike:
That was my understanding too.
I bailed the third time the guy on the left described something Republicans might do as, “Jerk off in a cup.”
Huxley, I bailed after the f-word 2X in the first 30 seconds followed by the cup phrase. I’m sick of the bad language. Their insights are not important enough for me to put up with this anymore.
I should have been less terse. Every new Congress the legislation numbering starts over again. Many bills have been called HR-1, but the one neo refers to is a specific one from 7 years ago, the “For the People Act”, that was going to revamp voting in the way Democrats wanted it done.
— Another Mike
I actually suspect it would be closer to the truth to say that some GOP big shots are desperately hoping and praying that the GOP will lose both the House and the Senate in the midterms, thus permitting a return to open borders and the pre-Trump status quo .
Many high-level Republican politicians (not all, by any means, but many), esp. in the Senate and esp. among the older ones who pre-date Trump, have very little interest in anything except the Business Agenda. Everything else they talk about is just that, talk, to get elected so that can represent business interests, both major corporate ones and small-town businesses. (Both groups like massive immigration because it keeps labor costs down.)
Many of them privately loathe Trump, both because he seems vulgar and low-class, and because they want to return to the former status quo. They don’t like their base voters, either, except for the business owners. Those voters sense that, which is part of why the GOP keeps losing momentum the moment they win an election. The only part of the agenda they run on that the GOP big s shots really care about it the Business Agenda…which is precisely the least popular element of their platforms with the base.
We should always remember that Mitch McConnell held ~30 Senate votes to defund Obamacare. THIRTY. Then, when Trump was elected in 2016 and said, “Send me the repeal bill!”: panic. Chaos. The GOP never wanted to undo Obamacare, because Big Business loved it. They were fine with voting to do so for show, as long as there was no chance of it taking effect, the moment it became a real option that collapsed into confusion.
When the TEA Party movement turned the 2014 off-year into a big Congressional gain for the GOP, McConnell whipped the vote in the lame duck session to pass the infamous ‘cromnibus’ budget bill. He wanted to lock everything down for a year to the incoming TEA Party-ish Congressmen couldn’t change anything.
There’s a reason why Mitch McConnell got booed at his own party’s political conventions.
I’m beginning to feel like one of the First Class passengers aboard the Titanic, sitting in the First Class Lounge and happily sipping tea when all of a sudden, I hear the ship’s band strike up “Nearer My God to Thee.”
Thanks for the answers.
So the GOP is supposed to end the filibuster and pass the SAVE Act? Then a court would enjoin it. Although it is likely to be upheld eventually, there is no possible way that it would finish winding through the courts before the 2026 election. Given that its opponents would have an interest in delaying as long as possible, the chances of it actually being in force before the 2028 elections would not be great.
Then Trump’s erratic and unpopular behavior allow Democrats win Congress in 2026 and a Democrat to win the White House in 2028. Then Democrats go wild without the filibuster as neo’s Ruthless podcasters suggest.
It’s the scene from Animal House acted out in real life – a futile and stupid gesture indeed.
And to those who would argue that Democrats would eliminate the filibuster anyway, you’re probably correct about that. But let’s review the deal:
If Republicans eliminate the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act, then
Democrats get: Everything they’ve always wanted starting in 2029.
Republicans get: Nothing.
If Republicans don’t eliminate the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act:
Democrats get: Everything they’ve always wanted starting in 2029, but they also pay some political price for being the party that eliminated the filibuster.
Republicans get: Nothing
Now, that’s a terrible deal for Republicans either way, but if you can’t see how one is better than the other, you’re either not paying attention or you’re being driven by emotion rather than reason.
Also, to clarify – this isn’t about the qualities of Voter ID, which I support. There simply is no way to implement a nationwide voter ID requirement for 2026 and likely no way to do it for 2028. None. Nada. Not going to happen. Those who say otherwise are selling you a bridge in Brooklyn.
huxley, Telemachus, thanks for telling me that it’s not only this older woman who is put off by the language. Is he unable to express himself otherwise? I think I’ll stick to written commentary.
Bauxite summarizes what the Ruthless crew were saying without the vulgarity. Thanks.
Sadly, the SAVE Act, much as I support it, would not save the left coast or Virginia from themselves anytime soon. I have called my errant still-Senator Tillis to express support for the bill. I hold out little hope for it.
Apparently with Lee + 48 cosponsors and one No – Murkowski the fate of the bill lies in the hands of McConnell, Collins and Tillis. Will one of them let the bill move to the floor for debate?
Thanks Kate – FWIW, I’m not a fan of the vulgarity either. There was a time when vulgarity was associated with a lack of intelligence. Then the elite picked up the bad habit and the data changed, so now folks think vulgarity is a sign of intelligence. It’s still not, it’s just an ignorant, degenerate habit that was picked up by the popular kids.
Also, FWIW, I don’t think that considering the SAVE Act right now is a bad political move. It really is an 80/20 issue, even among minority constituencies. Forcing Democrats stand up and make the idiotic argument that Voter ID is racist is not a bad thing to do at all.
But just don’t think that they’re actually going to pass it, let alone abolish the filibuster to pass it. Congressional Republicans are a lot of things, but they’re not that stupid
Filibuster was “nuked” at least three times last year. Nobody here noticed. A majority of 51 can and does set it aside any time they want.
Unfortunately , I had to listen to a segment of Glenn Beck’s radio show, and he expressed his anger at the incompetence of the Republicans.
He said he would not hesitate to join/support a third party led by Musk.
I don’t blame him for being pissed off, but any idiot can see that every vote given to a conservative third party candidate is one less vote for the incompetent republicans and an additional vote in favor of the communist/socialist/liberal, open borders, defund ICE, pack the Supreme Court, prohibit voter ID, increase the size of govt., prohibit gasoline powered cars, shut down the oil and gas industry, etc etc.
party.
In effect, you would be ridding yourself of, say, a Kerensky, and replacing him with a Lenin.
I too am upset at the stupidity and incompetence of the republicans, but the alternative choice is far, far worse.
We, as is the norm, have to choose betwixt options that are sub-optimal, however unfortunate.
The dumbpublicans are incompetent , but they are far, far more preferable to the “new” AOC led demonkrat party; a party that literally despises the Constitution, the USA and about 50% of all Americans.
@JohnTyler:I too am upset at the stupidity and incompetence of the republicans, but the alternative choice is far, far worse.
It’s a false choice, between the Dems and GOP. The REAL choice is to replace some of the GOP with better ones. Like with Trump. Yes, Jeb! would have been better than Hillary Clinton, but Jeb! would not have made any real changes.
The only sense made by voting GOP with the GOP politicians we currently have is as a delaying tactic. But a delaying tactic only makes sense if someone is coming to help you. No one is coming to help us.
We don’t have to purge the whole GOP. Just a few examples pour encourager les autres. They don’t fear Dem dominance, they grew up under that system and the senior ones have safe seats and know how to exploit their minority positions to benefit their patrons, clients, and cronies. They fear losing their spot at the trough. Since they don’t have principles, pick off a few, the others will come to Jesus.
Make excuses for continuing to vote for them because “the Dems are worse” and we’ll get another 50 years of the leftward ratchet.
— Kate
— Bauxite
They don’t think it sounds intelligent, they think it sounds real. Authentic and serious. Dispensing with pretense.
They are of course wrong.
There has always been a mindset that equates civility with weakness and insincerity. Decades ago, J.R.R. Tolkien referred to that in correspondence, talking about people to whom: “Only the squalid sounds strong.”
That mindset has grown in strength lately as a natural side-effect of Enlightenment materialist philosophy in its final phases. If everything is relative, then civility and crudity are equivalent. If there are no rules, then there are no rules. It feeds that ‘race to the bottom’ mentality that we see everywhere.
Niketas:
You keep saying that, and yet we’ve discussed it many times here before. Just to take one example, I wrote on the subject in 2016. Plus, you and I have discussed this very issue in the comments, although it’s hard to do a search of comments to find it.
I would also wager that most people here are well aware that budget bills and judicial nominations (including SCOTUS) are exempt
@neo: I wrote on the subject in 2016.
You wrote on it in 2025, for that matter, when the filibuster was nuked on May 21 and nobody noticed. I will keep pointing it out until people stop listening to the narrative of the filibuster and start looking at the facts of the filibuster, which is that it can be and is set aside with 51 votes on any issue, and happens more often than we notice.
I think most of us have caught on here that “government shutdowns” are theater, and the sooner we catch on to the filibuster as theater as well the closer we will be to imposing accountability on the people who claim to represent us, instead of making excuses for them.
The filibuster is no more a barrier to a 51 majority than having to say “Simon Says”, or putting in the admin password for your own computer when it asks you to. It’s just a way for a majority to pretend to try to do something that the majority does not actually want to do.
Niketas:
It certainly was a barrier when the Democrats tried to pass their own federal voting act to do away with most voter security. They couldn’t get rid of the rule. And for the GOP, there are a few RINOs who won’t get rid of it, and that constitutes a barrier because the GOP majority is tiny and every vote counts.
I don’t see anyone here saying it can’t be gotten rid of if there is a majority to do so. Maybe there is someone I haven’t seen, but it’s my impression that most people are aware of that fact. Why do you keep acting like people don’t know?
@neo:It certainly was a barrier when the Democrats tried to pass their own federal voting act to do away with most voter security. They couldn’t get rid of the rule.
If 51 had voted to set aside the rule it would have been set aside. Not a case of 51 “couldn’t”, but case of 51 “didn’t want to”. Some of the 51 were only pretending to support the issue and they used the failure to override the filibuster as cover. They do this all the time in any number of ways, if we remember John Kerry’s “I voted for it before voting against it”.
Why do you keep acting like people don’t know?
Because of comments like Bauxite’s, who either doesn’t know or is pretending not to know. The Dems could pass “HR1” or anything else using a one-time 51-vote set aside of the filibuster if 51 of them want to do it, and then go right back to pretending they need 60 votes to do anything if they wish.
If they don’t do it, it follows that there weren’t 51 who wanted to do it. And same for any time the GOP uses the filibuster as an excuse for not doing something.
It silly to go along with the pretense that the Senate is not a simple-majority body, because politicians in both parties are using that narrative to screw this country up further. It will work as long as we make excuses for them, and will stop working when we stop and hold them accountable.
Fortunately they are setting aside the filibuster so often now that the pretense probably has only a few more years to run. But a lot of damage could be done in that time, better we see it sooner than later.
Bauxy fails to realize that without Trump we’d now be in our fifth consecutive term of one-party rule. Or maybe he does realize it.