Randall Schroder

Christian, conservative. Love living life to the fullest, flying my airplane, playing saxophone, pickleball, camping, hiking, biking and scuba diving. No DMs.

[Randall Schroder @SchroderRandall]

@MarshaBlackburn @realDonaldTrump Very happy to see you join the others in cancelling the recess and getting the SAVE America Act passed.

[Randall Schroder @SchroderRandall]

@ScottPresler @Eric_Schmitt indicates he is in favor of staying through August to pass the SAVE America Act.

[Randall Schroder @SchroderRandall]

@Eric_Schmitt YES! Thank you Senator Schmitt. I'm from Missouri and so happy I voted for you. Please continue to support this effort to cancel the recess and get the SAVE America Act passed.

[Mike Lee @BasedMikeLee]

My colleague from South Dakota suggests here that the talking filibuster hasn’t been used in a century, and that it was not used to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

He’s mistaken.

As I’ve explained to the entire Senate GOP on multiple occasions, the talking filibuster *was* used effectively to break the weeks-long filibuster mounted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Leader Thune and others point out that the Senate ultimately invoked cloture on the Civil Rights Act, and on that basis wrongly conclude that the talking filibuster was *not* the tool used to achieve that victory.

This argument ignores the fact that this is *how* the Senate closed a staggering 30-vote cloture deficit in 1964. After many weeks of fighting a losing battle, filibustering senators predictably started to lose their resolve to hold up the bill indefinitely, especially when they realized how hard they’d have to work to keep the effort alive.

So they started proposing and supporting amendments to the bill to make it more palatable and help them save face.

I still maintain that this is a viable approach that could work well—even better—in the context of the SAVE America Act, especially considering that the bill is less complicated and less controversial with voters than was the Civil Rights Act, and currently has a cloture deficit of only 10 votes—tiny compared to the 30-vote deficit faced by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

My colleague also mistakenly suggests that Senate Republicans would have to vote to enforce the talking filibuster. That simply isn’t true; no vote is required for this step. All we need is a majority leader willing to announce that we’re getting on the bill and that we will continue to debate it until it passes—all with the understanding that if filibustering senators fail to show up to debate it, we can “call the question” and pass it with a simple majority.

That understanding, in turn, is what motivates the filibustering senators to show up and speak, but it’s also what naturally causes them to tire of the exercise after a few weeks, at which point they start looking for a face-saving off-ramp.

Finally, Leader Thune suggests that the talking filibuster would be thwarted by being “reset” every time Democrats offered an amendment. There’s a valid point in there, but it’s not a good reason not to invoke the talking filibuster. It appears he’s referring indirectly to paragraph 1(a) of Senate Rule 19 (the two-speech rule). While offering a new amendment can create a new question under longstanding practice, the September 25, 1986 precedent narrowed how rigidly the two-speech rule is applied by clarifying that many procedural actions do not count as speeches at all.

Particularly in light of that 1986 clarification, it’s been a long time since I’ve suggested we consider rigid enforcement of Rule 19’s two-speech limit as part of a talking filibuster strategy for the SAVE America Act. We don’t need it!

Nor was that rule aggressively enforced during the Senate’s consideration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Majority Leader Mike Mansfield correctly focused on requiring actual debate from filibustering senators rather than looking for technical ways to shut the debate down.

To give credit where it’s due, I appreciate what Leader Thune said in this interview about the possibility of passing some iteration of SAVE America using budget reconciliation—a procedure in which there is no 60-vote cloture hurdle. I’ve been skeptical of this approach in the past, but I’m starting to believe the SAVE America Act has more budgetary features than I initially considered possible.

That said, reconciliation is fraught with all kinds of problems, challenges, risks, and uncertainties. Also, failure can be far too easy to blame on the parliamentarian.

I’m open to considering the reconciliation path, but we should make this decision with our eyes open. To do that, we need to separate fact from fiction when it comes to the talking filibuster.

[Randall Schroder @SchroderRandall]

@BasedMikeLee Senators Hawley and Schmidt from Missouri better join you if they expect to get my vote next time.

[Mila Joy @Milajoy]

Something is very wrong here.

In Wisconsin, there's only 4 million voting aged adults.

But there's 7.13 million registered voters.

Pass the SAVE America Act today. https://t.co/YJgUIV6Yyw

[Lara Logan @laralogan]

Remember when they said there was “no evidence: of fraud? They choose not to look at the evidence.

[Randall Schroder @SchroderRandall]

@lisamurkowski You are a traitor to the country.

[Randall Schroder @SchroderRandall]

@RepLuna @MsAvaArmstrong Yes it certainly is!

[John Solomon @jsolomonReports]

To @CNN, you have a short memory. In 2024 you credibly covered that China hacked Great Britain’s voter files. Those files are public like the US. Why was it news then but now disinformation when Trump reveals it happened to Americans? https://t.co/7DBIjgn6fN

[Mike Lee @BasedMikeLee]

After tonight, it’s even clearer that the Senate should take the SAVE America Act and continue debating it until it passes

Repost if you agree

[Randall Schroder @SchroderRandall]

@Osint613 Do not listen to their lies.

[Laura Loomer @LauraLoomer]

A very high level source told me Mitch McConnell is officially brain dead and machines are keeping him alive, but he is a vegetable and “never coming back.”

So why is his wife @ElaineChao in China instead of by his side?

Is she a Chinese CCP spy? How does the wife of one of the most powerful US Senators just travel to China?

Is she coming back from China? Who is she meeting with in China?

Will she be the one to pull the plug?

[Erikaaa @ErikaCA47]

🚨 REPORTED 911 Dispatch regarding Sen. Mitch McConnell:

Dispatched 8:36 to his home in DC on June 14th... Requesting EMS stating “unconscious and needing ALS (advanced life support).”

Is Mitch McConnell even alive? We the people deserve to know.

[Randall Schroder @SchroderRandall]

@SpeakerJohnson So six it with legislation then instead of just posting and doing nothing. Thank you.

[Randall Schroder @SchroderRandall]

@HawleyMO Good. Now pass the SAVE act and something to deal with the foreign baby factory.

[LindellTV @RealLindellTV]

🚨 BREAKING: Burchett Hints at Possible Talks With VP JD Vance About Presiding Over the Senate to Advance the SAVE Act

LindellTV's @alisonintheknow asked @RepTimBurchett (R-Tenn.) whether @VP @JDVance should preside over the Senate to enforce a traditional talking filibuster in an effort to move the SAVE Act forward.

Burchett said the strategy is "a viable path forward," while acknowledging it would be a dramatic step.

"Sure it is. It's a scorched earth deal, though. There's no turning back."

Despite that, Burchett made clear where he stands:

"I'm all for it. I don't care. I'm a scorched earth kind of guy."

When Steinberg asked if he would speak with Vice President Vance about making it happen, Burchett offered a cryptic response:

"Maybe I have, maybe I have..."

[Andrew Kolvet @AndrewKolvet]

Official transcript from the US Senate on May 30, 1866. Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the 14th Amendment:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens...”

SCOTUS got this ruling 100% wrong. A total travesty.