- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The SAVE act
Posted on 2/7/26 at 8:46 pm
Posted on 2/7/26 at 8:46 pm
Trump wants the SAVE act....pedocrats cry that he's "wants to rip out the constitution’s election clause and take away the states’ authority to administer elections.
ETA https://thefederalist.com/2026/02/06/mitch-mcconnell-might-try-to-smother-the-save-act-to-spite-trump/
quote:
The first bill that then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi rolled out in 2021 was HR 1, a 900-page behemoth that would have the federal government take over federal elections. The “For the People Act,” as the legislation was banally dubbed, would have banned voter ID across the country. It would have barred states from routinely cleaning their voter rolls and, laughably enough, the People Act would have ended “partisan gerrymandering to prevent politicians from picking their voters” — you know, like California just did.
quote:
the Constitution clearly haven’t read it. The Elections Clause states, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”
quote:
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 ( pedocrats controlled Congress and presidency) bars states from requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship up registering to vote. Instead, state have to accept a glorified honor system.
quote:
Then there is the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, another nationalizing of election administration, if you will. The law bans foreign nationals from making contributions “in connection with any federal, state or local election.”
quote:
“I’m not in favor of federalizing elections, no. I think that’s a constitutional issue,” Thune told reporters.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. ETA https://thefederalist.com/2026/02/06/mitch-mcconnell-might-try-to-smother-the-save-act-to-spite-trump/
This post was edited on 2/7/26 at 8:52 pm
8
Posted on 2/7/26 at 8:53 pm to LSUbest
If this doesn’t pass we are done as a nation.
Posted on 2/7/26 at 9:04 pm to shamrock
A nation held hostage by thune, tillis, cornyn, rand, and grassley
We let some pussiees ruin this country
We let some pussiees ruin this country
This post was edited on 2/7/26 at 9:19 pm
Posted on 2/7/26 at 9:12 pm to LSUbest
Jim Crow 2.0?
Libs really like to keep minorities working at McDonalds and other fast food chains.
Libs really like to keep minorities working at McDonalds and other fast food chains.
Posted on 2/7/26 at 9:23 pm to LChama
quote:
A nation held hostage by thune, tillis, cornyn, rand, and grassley
And cocaine bitch. They have no valid reason not to undo the shite the pedocrats did.
Posted on 2/7/26 at 9:36 pm to LSUbest
quote:
take away the states’ authority to administer elections.
Guess that the rub isn't it?
The states didn't administer their elections and allowed rampant fraud to the point that it altered the outcome of the 2020 presidential election by 81-million votes.
Unprecedented.
Biden won by over 7-million votes.
What percentage of those votes were fraudulent?
That's unchecked voter fraud.
Eventually the USSC will have to struggle mightily as to whether this is going to be allowed, or not.
So we'll see.
Posted on 2/7/26 at 9:40 pm to Stat M Repairman
If they really cared about federalized elections they would have repealed the national voter act of 1993.
It's just an excuse.
It's just an excuse.
Posted on 2/7/26 at 9:43 pm to Stat M Repairman
Also wild is to see big-government-marxists reverse course and suddenly arguing on the basis of 'states rights'
They hate states rights when it comes to abortion, but love states rights when it comes to administering elections.
They hate states rights when it comes to abortion, but love states rights when it comes to administering elections.
Posted on 2/7/26 at 9:50 pm to Stat M Repairman
Libs/Marxists are wet farts being blown back and forth by the wind.
Posted on 2/7/26 at 9:51 pm to LSUbest
The most flawed assumption I make following politics is that legislators will pass legislation with 80% plus approval.
This post was edited on 2/7/26 at 9:52 pm
Posted on 2/7/26 at 9:54 pm to GumboPot
quote:
The most flawed assumption I make following politics it that legislators will pass legislation with 80% plus approval.
Which is what makes Congress voting to release the Epstein files even more wild.
Passed unanimously in the Senate, and unanimously in the house save for one vote.
Apparently the only thing our government CAN agree on is the release of the Epstein files.
Wild times.
Posted on 2/7/26 at 9:57 pm to Stat M Repairman
quote:
Apparently the only thing our government CAN agree on is the release of the Epstein files.
And pass Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi budgets. Republicans are really good at that too. They are deathly afraid of cutting the fraud, waste and abuse Doge found.
Posted on 2/7/26 at 9:57 pm to LSUbest
I think what we really want is the Save America Act.
Posted on 2/7/26 at 10:08 pm to Riverside
quote:
I think what we really want is the Save America Act.
You're right. I just rolled with the language of the article.
Posted on 2/7/26 at 10:09 pm to LSUbest
I was confused about them both and thought they were the same thing until earlier this week.
Posted on 2/7/26 at 10:53 pm to LChama
quote:
A nation held hostage by thune, tillis, cornyn, rand, and grassley
This is where Rand gets irritating. It's great that he's principled. We need some people like that. However, you also have to get things done in accordance with the will of the People. His soft approach fails in that regard. As you read how this process works below, think about how little Grassley, Thune, and others care about this nation, that they would not go through a standing process that assures them passage of the SAVE Act within a week or so.
Rand said he's for the SAVE Act but is unsure whether he likes the idea of using a standing filibuster to make it happen.
“??I’m not really for changing the filibuster, but I am definitely for the SAVE Act,” Paul told The Epoch Times.
There's a generic filibuster - anyone can say they want to debate and it takes 60 votes to close the debate and move to a vote. Then there's the talking filibuster. As you read the explanation below, bear in mind that the typical Democrat senator is mid 60s and they don't get breaks during their time to speak. The demands on Democrats are far greater than those on Republicans, but guys like Grassley don't want to show for various votes. He has to take his Geritol and get his naps. Let the country burn down, but God forbid he has to walk into the chamber for a quorum vote.
The Talking Filibuster
If the Republican majority can outlast the Democrat minority speeches or can exhaust enough Democrat senators to the point of signing a cloture petition to end debate, then a final vote on the SAVE Act would take place at a simple majority threshold of 51 votes.
Synopsis
Currently, there is significant discussion about the possibility of using what is called a talking filibuster in the U.S. Senate to pass the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, legislation that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote.1...Below, we outline the history of the Senate filibuster and explain how the use of a talking filibuster would not mean the end of the Senate filibuster as we know it but rather a return to how the Senate historically functioned, as in a phrase reportedly first used by President James Buchanan, “the world’s greatest deliberative body.”
What Is the Talking Filibuster?
The talking filibuster is the original and historical way of ending debate in the Senate. The Senate operates on the foundation of unlimited debate, meaning there is no way to prevent senators from debating a bill until they are satisfied with it and put it to a vote. Debate only ends when there is unanimous agreement that everyone has had his or her say. Because of this, a senator (or group of senators) could theoretically hold the floor and talk indefinitely to prevent debate from ending and moving on to a vote.
It is important to note that the addition of cloture did not eliminate the traditional and original practice of limitless debate, which could result in a talking filibuster. The ability to filibuster by endlessly talking on the Senate floor is still a part of the Senate rules, but it is currently not used because of the cloture mechanism.
What Is Cloture?
Cloture is the procedure the Senate uses to end debate on a matter and move toward a final vote, most notably to overcome a filibuster. Cloture limits debate and ends a filibuster.
Is the Use of the Talking Filibuster the “Nuclear Option” or the Elimination of the Filibuster?
No. The talking filibuster is already allowed under the Senate rules and has been since 1806. The rule that allows cloture was not added to the Senate rules until 1917, and the modern version of cloture wasn’t a part of the Senate rules until 1975. From 1806 to 1917, the only way to end debate in the Senate was for senators to just stop talking. The talking filibuster is the original filibuster.
The nuclear option is the Senate deciding to operate in opposition to, or contravention of, the Standing Rules of the Senate. This is done by the Senate agreeing to set a new precedent by which it operates. Because the Constitution allows the Senate to set up its own proceedings, it can operate in opposition to the Senate’s Standing Rules if senators agree to do so. The Senate operates based on the 44 Standing Rules of the Senate and additionally on thousands of precedents that may contradict the Standing Rules.
The term nuclear option dates back to 2013, when Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid lowered the cloture threshold to end debate on lower court judicial nominations and executive branch nominations. Reid did not change the Standing Rules of the Senate. Rather, he and the Democrat majority decided to set a new precedent that lower court and executive nominees would be set at 51 votes instead of 60, despite what the Standing Rules say.4 This was characterized as the Senate “going nuclear.” Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also followed this practice for Supreme Court nominations in 2017.5
How the Talking Filibuster Could Be Used to Pass the SAVE Act
Here’s how the current Senate majority could pass the SAVE Act without ending the filibuster or “going nuclear.”
The Majority Leader would make the SAVE Act the pending business before the Senate. He would not file a cloture petition on it.
Once the SAVE Act is the pending business of the Senate, debate can begin indefinitely.
However, per Standing Senate Rule XIX, senators are limited to two speeches per legislative day on the same question during the debate on the bill. A legislative day is not a calendar day; it is the period beginning when the Senate convenes and ending when it adjourns. Legislative days do not align with calendar days. A single legislative day can last several days, weeks, or even months. In this scenario, the legislative day would last as long as debate continues on the SAVE Act and through a vote on the bill.
This means that all 47 Democrat senators in the minority, should they oppose the bill, would have two indefinite times to speak on the SAVE Act. Each time period could last several days, weeks, or months, depending on the senator’s stamina. This approach would mean Democrat senators were engaging in a talking filibuster. Per the Senate Rules and tradition, when holding the floor and speaking, a senator cannot sit, cannot take bathroom breaks, and cannot consume anything except water or, by existing precedent, milk.
Throughout the filibuster, senators opposed to the bill would try several parliamentary tactics to derail the bill. This includes calling votes on motions to adjourn, requesting votes on amendments, and conducting a quorum call that forces all senators to the Senate floor to be counted as present. In this scenario, Republican senators in the majority must stay at or near the Senate floor to be present for voting on these measures or to be counted during a quorum call.
Ultimately, the talking filibuster on the SAVE Act would end with either all of the opposing Democrat senators using up their two speeches each or one side giving up due to exhaustion.
If the Republican majority can outlast the Democrat minority speeches (which could take weeks) or can exhaust enough Democrat senators to the point of signing a cloture petition to end debate (currently, there must be at least seven Democrat votes to reach 60 for cloture), then a final vote on the SAVE Act would take place at a simple majority threshold of 51 votes.
Posted on 2/7/26 at 10:56 pm to LSUbest
quote:
The SAVE act
Ain't getting passed. Republican Senators are the most worthless people on Earth.
Posted on 2/7/26 at 11:00 pm to LChama
quote:
A nation held hostage by thune, tillis, cornyn, rand, and grassley
Call the DC switchboard at 202-225-3121, ask the operator to connect you to one of these Senators, and tell him to pass the SAVE Act. Then call back and ask for another one.
Posted on 2/7/26 at 11:08 pm to tigersbh
quote:
Call the DC switchboard at 202-225-3121, ask the operator to connect you to one of these Senators, and tell him to pass the SAVE Act. Then call back and ask for another one.
I'll take "things that have never worked for $1000, Alex".
Posted on 2/7/26 at 11:17 pm to LSUbest
Ooooh, those po’ black folks be havin’ to go to duh DMV and drive cars and sheeeyut.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News