In Ohio, Sherrod Brown went full Jaime West this week in his U.S. Senate campaign. West is the Indiana candidate who became a viral sensation for pledging to “fire all Republicans” because “I just don’t like them.” Brown appears to be eager to jump on the same rage train and pledged that he will vote against any Republican judicial nominee regardless of their qualifications or background.
Brown is literally pledging that he will toss away the constitutional duty of “advice and consent” under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and vote blindly against anyone nominated by President Trump because he does not like him.
Brown told MS NOW that “we’re not, obviously, confirming judges that are Trump judges.” Unfortunately, it is common for senators of the opposing party to vote against a President’s nominees. However, they at least preserve the pretense of “advice and consent.” Brown is trying to win the race to the bottom by saying that Trump could nominate Louis Brandeis and he would still vote against him because he is a Trump judicial nominee.
Brown seems to be channeling Jaime West, who admitted that she does “not even talk to them” and hates Republicans.
It is a curious pledge in a state that voted for Trump three times and is Republican.
What is most concerning is that this pledge is made as leading Democrats are lining up in favor of packing the Court. The combination would ravage our court system through packing and attrition. Brown would simply not confirm any new judges as a way off reducing Republican judges on the bench.
Brown and his colleagues are given absolute discretion in casting their votes on judicial nominees, including doing so on a strictly partisan basis. They also have the right not to vote on a nominee, as was the case of the nomination of Merrick Garland. While I also criticized the failure to vote on Garland, it was within the authority of the Senate to forego such a vote.
There was a time when the Senate was called the “world’s greatest deliberative body.” The phrase attributed to former President James Buchanan in 1867 is often repeated today like a mantra by senators who have dispensed with serious deliberations in favor of endless demonstrations. Now, Brown is actually running on a “no deliberation” pledge.
I am old enough to remember when senators routinely voted for judges from the other party and different ideology as a matter of political integrity. For many decades, senators insisted that they were bound to vote for a nominee if they were qualified even if they disagreed with their liberal or conservative jurisprudential views.
With Brown, even the pretense of deliberation is over. He is pledging not to consider the merits of nominees in fulfilling his oath to give “advice and consent” on nominations. Joining Jaime West, he is announcing that he just does not like them and so he will not speak with them.
The senators now seem to be offering pure undiluted rage to voters. In Rage and the Republic, I discuss how the Framers designed our Constitution to prevent a democracy from becoming what Benjamin Rush called a mobocracy. It is now becoming the captive of the very blind passions that it was designed to resist.
The Brown pledge is a chilling moment for this once august institution. It was designed to be a bulwark against the mob, an institution that would temper passions, not yield to them. Indeed, in his final farewell to the Senate in 1805, Aaron Burr remarked that “if the Constitution be destined ever to perish by the sacrilegious hand of the demagogue or the usurper, which God avert, its expiring agonies will be witnessed on this floor.”
Jonathan Turley, is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Im not sure what anyone expects from a corrupt democrat socialist/Marxist party. They have completely lost their minds. It is beyond my comprehension to understand how anyone would vote for these anti American lunatics.
Other abti Amwrucab lunatics. That’s whi votes for them. And for the cadres of such lunatics, we can blame our media/education industry which was the product of willfully voting democrats.
Sorry, the dog jiggled my hand while typing
The patron sex symbol of the Democratic Party as taken flight upon the Airwaves once again.
Run Away! Save Yourselves! The Teflon Granny is BaaaaaaacK !!! 🧙♀️
Re.:
Kara Swisher launches ‘High Stakes’, a six-week limited series with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, timed to the run-up to the midterm elections. This opening ‘affordability episode’ covers Elon Musk’s record political spending ($276m since July, including $158m to the GOP Senate super PAC and $76m for a canvassing army), Trump’s move to ease Russian diesel sanctions, the proposed live-streamed firing-squad execution of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, and the tight Senate races in Michigan (Abdul El-Sayed vs Mike Rogers) and Maine (Susan Collins vs Troy Jackson). Clinton argues money only matters when effectively deployed, that Republicans are trapped by Trump’s refusal to acknowledge rising costs, and that Democrats must hammer one message — making life affordable again — and legislate on healthcare subsidies, tariffs and gas prices.
On with Kara Swisher:
Podcast Attribute Details
Hosts Kara Swisher • Hillary Clinton
Network Vox Media Podcast Network
Release Schedule Wednesdays (6-week limited series)
‘On’ with Kara Swisher
High Stakes with HRC: The Affordability Episode
10/14/2026 | 56 mins.
The midterms are approaching, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. Welcome to High Stakes, a limited series from Kara Swisher and the former Secretary of State herself: Hillary Clinton. For the next six weeks, the two are here to break down this year’s most consequential races, highlight the biggest issues on the ballot, and prepare you for the midterms elections… and what comes next.
First up, it’s the affordability episode. From Elon Musk’s massive political spending to rising costs for gas, groceries, and health care, Kara and Hillary weigh in on whether money can sway voters—and how Democrats can focus on making everyday life more affordable. They also break down key Senate races in Michigan and Maine, the one message Democrats need to hammer home into November, and the dangers of turning government into a spectacle.
Plus, Hillary reflects on her own experience with political attacks, and the lessons Pete Hegseth could learn from Osama Bin Laden’s death.
On with Kara Swisher
New HIGH STAKES episodes drop Wednesdays.
https://podcasts.voxmedia.com/show/on-with-kara-swisher
HIGH STAKES with HRC: Gas, Groceries, and the 2026 Fight for Congress
Vote Red or our Republic is Dead. We must stop the democrat socialist/Marxist party from ever gaining power again. They seek to destroy the foundations of our country.
Brown is just saying the quite part out loud – vote accordingly.
Vote Red or our Republic is Dead
I am going to engage in wokespeak.
“All is fair when fighting evil, fascist, Republicans.”
How did I do s@@tlibs?
antonio
“I am old enough to remember when senators routinely voted for judges from the other party and different ideology as a matter of political integrity. …” – JT
Sen. Brown has been in public office for 51 years.
He is the epitome of why we need Term Limits.
His hypocrisy is that, He has been a ‘Lifer’ just as much as a Supreme Court Justice.
Term Limits – At 65yrs old, your done across the board of all three branches. Mandatory flat-rate Age-of-Retirement for everybody in Government.
Sherrod Campbell Brown
Born: November 9, 1952 (age 73)
Public Service: since January 3, 1975 to Present
United States Senator from Ohio
In office: January 3, 2007 – January 3, 2025
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Ohio’s 13th district
In office: January 3, 1993 – January 3, 2007
46th Secretary of State of Ohio
In office: January 12, 1983 – January 14, 1991
Member of the Ohio House of Representatives from the 61st district
In office: January 3, 1975 – January 3, 1983
The Democrats have made true representative government a joke. Actually, far more serious than a joke. They have made it a challenge. Not like a sport challenge, or even a winner-take-all hand of cards, but like a duel in a John Wick movie. Think about what these guys have said to approximately half of their own states. “We Hate You!” is the message. “We Hate You So Much!” that we not only won’t consider your opinions and concerns, but we will destroy you. That should scare a Conservative to death and it should freak out any true fair-minded American of any persuasion. But it won’t. Because it’s no longer all about winning. It’s about destruction. This is the same mindset of the Germans who marched through Russia, burning villages and towns and destroying everything even though they had conquered the land. Don’t disagree. Destroy. Don’t debate. Destroy. But remember the precedent you set. The lesson you teach. The Germans were defeated by a winter. Well, Democrats, a winter of horrific proportions is coming your way.
Professor Turley has reported that Sherrod Brown merely stated the quiet part out loud. The Dems already vote negatively on everything Trump supports. They vote in lockstep, with rare exceptions. Recall just a few years ago when Dem defectors Sinema and Manchin voted against changing the Senate filibuster rules. That made national news mostly because they did NOT fall in line.
So, this pledge indicates Brown’s internal polling suggests he’s in trouble. He’s trolling for the ultimate hate voters.
Here’s a test. The Trump accounts are very popular for kids. Watch the Dems kill this program if they win. They already have their main talking point: the money fills the pockets of the rich. You can believe only after taking a short course in “convoluted thinking”, a Dem specialty.
GDonaldAllen,
If Trump was for clean air, illiberal Democrats would be for attaching a hose to the exhaust on their car and inhaling.
I read your post to a coworker of mine.
His reply? “I wish they would. It would solve a lot of problems.”
Gdonaldallen,
Funny how it was Republicans who voted against everything President Obama supported. Now it’s an issue?
Come on.
The Trump accounts are very popular with kids? Trump accounts are automatically applied to babies. They have absolutely no idea what or who Trump is.
I said they were popular “for” kids, not “with” kids.
Can you tell me anything that Pres. Obama proposed that was actually a good idea ?
You really do not seem to grasp MOST of what govenrment does or wishes to do is a mistake that makes us all poorer.
While that is more often true of the left then the right – that is primarily because the left always seeks to do more, and atleast some of the time the right seeks to do less – which is actually good for all of us.
PPACA is proving a worse disaster than predicted.
No republican voted for it. Republicans repeatedly tried to kill it and came very close.
It is unsurprising it is rife with fraud, it has damaged healthcare overall, increased costs for everyone and cost the nation $2T/decade and rising.
If ONE democrat had voited against it – we would not have this millstone arround our necks.
We had emerging remedies for cost issues in healthcare – PPACA killed them.
The open bigotry of the modern left is something to behold, and it makes it clear not a whole lot has changed with them since 1863. That they discovered nazis and communists to emulate along the way has created quite the Frankenstein’s monster.
As an independent, I will never vote dem again, nor will I vote for their wolves in sheep’s clothing. These people are bleeping nuts.
James, you’re confusing Democrats with Republicans.
Remember, today’s Republicans were yesterday’s Democrats. They switched parties, but not their ideologies.
Actually X this is false. With very few exceptions southern democrats LOST to a rising conservative republican party.
Neither the people nor the parties just changed labels. The Republican takeover of the south took decades.
Further Southern democrats were PROGRESSIVE – not Conservsative – Huey Long was one of many famous southern progressives. Robert Penn Warren’s “all the kings men” was loosely based on Long and is an excellent reflection of southern progressive democrats – though Warren’s protagonist was not also racist.
Woodrow Wilson – Southern, Progressive Racist. Long – Southern Progressive Racist.
Sen. Robert Byrd – southern, progressive racist.
Republicans defeated southern progressive racists. They did not persuade them to change their sports.
Senator Byrd died in office in 2010 – not that long ago.
James,
Well said.
Who in their right mind would support things like no cash bail, open borders, pornography in elementary school libraries, the mutilation of children, abortion up to the baby entering the birth canal, defunding police, passing laws to protect fraud.
Who would?
Illiberal Democrats.
Help to save the USA, Ohioans!! Please!!
And the Pendulum of Revenge Politics (both sides are guilty as hell) is about to swing left again. Then it will come back to the right because the independent voters get disenchanted with same old same old mistakes in weaponization, crazy spending, a failing economy, and general mayhem from crime policies. WASH, RINSE, REPEAT. Stupid on both sides which is why Independents now swing elections.
Turley didn’t ignore Merrick Garland. He specifically addressed the Republican Senate’s refusal to hold a vote and linked to his own criticism of it back in 2016.
It’s also worth remembering that Sherrod Brown criticized Republicans in 2016 for refusing to consider Obama’s nominee before they even knew who it was. Now he’s saying Democrats won’t confirm Trump judges.
Sure, both parties have contributed to the mess we’re in. But how does that justify continuing it?
Senators have the constitutional authority to reject nominees. Nobody disputes that. The question is whether they should make that decision before even knowing who the nominee is.
Isn’t the whole point of advice and consent to actually consider the person being nominated? And shouldn’t we expect that regardless of which party controls the Senate?
In retrospect the refusal to confirm Merrick Garland was a blessing after we saw his performance as Attorney General.
John, the Garland comparison leaves out something important. Scalia died on February 13, 2016, and McConnell announced that same day that the next president should fill the vacancy. Garland hadn’t even been nominated yet.
Obama was in his final year, and Republicans controlled the Senate. They decided to leave that appointment to the next president. They had Obama’s record to go on and could reasonably judge the kind of justice he was likely to nominate. They also had the constitutional authority to withhold consent without bringing anyone to a vote.
And looking at Garland’s later performance as Attorney General, I can certainly understand why some people think that decision worked out pretty well.
But Brown’s statement is different. McConnell was dealing with one Supreme Court vacancy during a presidential election year. Brown appears to be ruling out Trump’s judicial nominees across the board.
I don’t expect senators to put aside everything they know about a president when considering his nominees. Of course that factors into their judgment.
But there’s a difference between making a decision about a particular vacancy under particular circumstances and announcing that you won’t confirm anybody a president nominates.
And I think we ought to be willing to examine that difference regardless of which party is doing it.
And shouldn’t we expect that regardless of which party controls the Senate?
Assuming you live in a fantasy world, you’re right. But nowadays it’s war. Time to wake up. So the answer is no.
OLLY,
I agree with your over all sentiment.
However, this is the party that without knowing who they were going to nominate as their SC justice, they said it was going to be a POC woman. Who just so happened could not define what a woman was. She was not a biologist. The good professor noted there were many minorities who were just as qualified if not more so than KBJ.
But here we are. In this Age of Rage, illiberal Democrats like Sherrod and West have to resort to the lowest common denominator: Rage. It is all they have.
Olly, the problem with this argument is that it treats politics like an academic debate rather than a high-stakes exercise of power. Expecting Democrats to unilaterally follow traditional rules of decorum while Republicans actively stack the courts through unprecedented procedural maneuvers isn’t high-minded; it’s political malpractice.
History has proven that Republicans will not ‘do the right thing’ out of pure sportsmanship. When one side permanently changes the rules of engagement—like blockading Garland or nuking the 60-vote filibuster threshold—the opposition is forced to match that tactical aggression just to maintain a baseline balance of power. Continuing this posture is a strategic necessity, not pure revenge.
You ask how we break the cycle. The answer isn’t for one party to voluntarily disarm and get crushed. The cycle only breaks when both parties find the actual, mutual political will to sit down and codify new, binding rules that neither side can exploit. Until both sides agree to a truce, expecting one side to lose gracefully under a broken system is completely unrealistic. It will take a huge risk from BOTH parties in order to fix the current political extremism.
This nation is still attempting to get itself back on the tracks after that train wreck of Brown’s 2020 to 2024 administration. Only the electorate, knowing what it had then, can decide whether or not it’s willing to buy another ticket. Thus far, I have not heard a democrat candidate present a plan to right the wrongs they cite. A whole lot of need to, but only we’l tell you when elected. They manifest the soft bigotry of low expectations for the intelligence of the low information voter who are their lawful prey. Do not send to know who was elected. Rather send to know who voted. Therein lies the rub.
” Thus far, I have not heard a democrat candidate present a plan to right the wrongs they cite.” Maybe because you have not looked?
I have looked and listened. All offered is ‘we have to’, but not how, and there is no opportunity for followup questions or counter arguments.
The game is as old as Don Corleone’s. Never tell them what you’re actually thinking. Let them think what you’re actually thinking. There’s time enough for the former once elected. NYC’s Cheshire Cat’ uses that well.
I recall Romney and Obama being asked what they deemed an existential threat to the U.S. Romney said Russia. Obama said climate change. Candy Crowly opted not to pursue it for a defense of position, El Sayed dodged a relevant question regarding Iran. This is what we get. BS MS PHD!
It would require participation from Republicans too. The whole idea of bipartisanship is based on mutual give and take. The extreme political environment we are in and as long as President Trump is in office it will be extremely hard to bring back even a semblance of traditional Republicans and Democrats.
Until Trump leaves office and elements of his extreme and crazy style of politics is tempered or diffused nothing will change.
“he will toss away the constitutional duty of “advice and consent” under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution”
To the constitutional lawyers out there, what happens if Dems simply do not participate i.e., not show up to committee?
Oh, would that the R’s would have begun this by voting down Ketanji Brown Jackson!
This post is absurd. It is not a violation of the Constitution to vote against nominees because of partisanship. The Senate is also allowed to refuse to even consider nominees. It should be expected that a D Senate would not confirm Trump judicial picks.
Likewise it should be expected that the filibuster and veto will figure prominently in the politics of the next 2 years.
Professor Turley’s “alarm” over Senator Sherrod Brown’s recent comments on judicial nominees paints a vivid picture of a crumbling constitutional republic. However, this relies on a remarkably selective memory of Senate history, treating the polarization of the judicial confirmation process as a brand-new phenomenon invented exclusively by modern Democrats.
First, the article laments that the pretense of “advice and consent” has been completely shattered. Yet, it entirely leaves out the events of 2016, when the Republican Senate majority refused to even hold a hearing or a vote for Merrick Garland, an objectively qualified nominee. If outright refusing to look at a nominee for nearly a year preserved the “pretense of deliberation,” then the bar for constitutional integrity is really, really low.
Second, Professor Turley looks back fondly (riiight) on a golden era when senators routinely voted for qualified judges from the opposing party. What he omits is that this tradition was systematically dismantled by both parties over two decades of procedural escalation—including the removal of the 60-vote filibuster threshold for federal and Supreme Court nominees. Senator Brown is not leading a new “race to the bottom”; he is simply arriving at the finish line of a race that was started long ago.
Finally, comparing a veteran U.S. senator’s strategic resistance against hard-right judicial appointments to an obscure local candidate’s viral quote about “firing Republicans” is a bit of a stretch and hilarious. To suggest that a politician stating they will vote against their opponent’s judicial picks is an existential threat to our democracy ignores the reality of our current extreme politics.
It is easy to romanticize the Senate of the 19th century, but we should judge today’s political shenanigans by the rules that both sides have established. Scolding a senator for playing by the current rules of hyper-partisan warfare while ignoring who helped write the rulebook is not an objective legal analysis— is just selective memory at work.
Shut up GROK…
What insane stupidity. He can’t even understand what Turley wrote, making claims that have nothing to do with the article.
No, it’s just your lack of reading comprehension. It’s pretty common on this blog.
Well, you’re right, it is pretty common and you’re proof. Why is it that everyone here mocks you?
Because everyone knows you’re “anonymous”. The troll constantly harassing others.
Different topic, same screed. Mr. Crement just keeps writing the same shopworn essay over and over again.
This just confirms that the Democrats have lost their minds. They hate Trump so much that they would destroy the Republic to spite him.
Sounds like Cato the Younger, who’s unreasoning hate for Julius Caesar and murderous attitude helped fuel the assassination of Caesar and cast the Roman Republic into a years long civil war, resulting in his own death, his partner’s deaths and the death of his Republic. A very constructive attitude no doubt. (sic)
Spot on.
What exactly have the dems done that will lead to the destruction of the Republic?
Brown typifies all that is wrong and evil in today’s metastasized Democrat and proto DSA member. They are fueled by hate and rage — hypergolic emotions — and they should be banished from the public square. Stated otherwise: if you value the preservation of the Republic, vote very carefully in the upcoming mid-terms and future general elections.
“Not confirming judges” is just another play in the playbook: “defund the police”, “terminate ICE”, “close prisons”, “cashless bail”, “refuse to coordinate with federal law enforcement”, “mobs in the streets”, “theft under $1,500.00 is fine and dandy” …
That playbook you mention, can you show us it?
The problem with your ESL is that metaphor eludes you
Not my comment, but metaphors must have a basis in fact. So where’s that “playbook” then? My guess it’s nothing more than MAGA rantings.
You mean this playbook: https://www.dsausa.org/#
Perhaps the time has come to outlaw the Democratic Party?
Outlaw? You’re crazier than West.
Blackbeard,
I have to respectfully disagree with you there.
As I have mentioned before, I do NOT want a single party rule. I would not mind seeing more than our current two-party dominated system, but it is what we have.
What moderate and traditional Democrats need to do is kick out the illiberal, stupid and crazy that has taken over the Democrat party. There are already fissures in it with the illiberal far leftist progressives and the DSA. I think and the Democrat party needs to jettison the stupid and crazy and take their party back.