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 of 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 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
Our republic has been on life support since JFK/LBJ and the time that we rejected the warnings of Tailgunner Joe.
It seems Republicans, at least a lot of them, are looking at getting fired by voters. This is why Republicans are rightly worried and it does look like they may be losing more than just the House.
The destruction of the Russian data centers has really put a crimp on the Republican strategy of letting the Russians interfere with our election.
FBI documents show agency sat on intel on potential China plan to meddle in 2020 election for Biden
“Recently-unearthed internal FBI documents provide more evidence that the bureau purposely failed to properly investigate allegations of Chinese government meddling in the 2020 U.S. presidential election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.”
“The FBI has located internal documents showing that it did not pursue intelligence indicating that Communist China was looking to hijack the 2020 presidential election with a potential mail-in ballot scheme to assist then-Democratic nominee Joe Biden because the bureau feared that would undercut then-FBI Director Christopher Wray’s assurances to Congress that foreign meddling did not pose a threat to the presidential race, officials told Just the News.”
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/fbi-documents-show-it-sat-intel-potential-chinese-plan-meddle-2020
I do not know if this is a reference to the FACT that CBP seized I beleive 2M forged drivers licenses coming into the US from China in the fall of 2020.
Why would China be sending 2M forged drivers licesnses to the US in the fall of 2020 ?
And given that CBP misses most illegal materials coming accross the border – how many forged Drivers licesnses got into the US ?
Please show me some actual evidence that anything has changed as a result of the destruction of these data centers ?
Please show me actual evidence that is not burried under a rock where no one can find it that Russia is consequentially doing anything ?
I have ZERO doubt Putin would love to screw with US elections. But there is a huge gulf between intention and ability.
It is absolutely correct that Russia F#$Ked with the 2016 election – but not favoring anyone and to absolutely no effect. The russian SM adds were garbage, they we equally in support of Sanders, Trump and Clinton, they were tiny in number, no american would be persuaded by any of them.
What has changed ? Have the Russians – a country that is having enormous difficulty defeating a country 1/5 their size suddenly gotten much better at election interferance ?
WE KNOW Iran is interfereing.
We KNOW that China is interfering.
Further though those of you on the left are delusional regarding Trump and Russia – Putin is NOT Trump’s friend and never has been.
Just like Kim Un Putin will work with Trump when it is in his interests and F#$K him over when it is not.
So what does Russia want right now ?
Absolutely they would be happy to get this diesel deal.
They also want the US to lose to Iran – While Trump has fairly effectively isolated Iran from Chinese and Russian assistance – there is no doubt that Iran provided MASSIVE assistance to Russia in fighting Ukrane and that Russia and China provided significant assistance to Iran.
So why exactly would Russia (or China) want Trump or Republicans to win ?
Even YOU can not make your mind up on this stuff.
You rant that Trump is F#$King over China and that is a mistake, But they you claim that Trump is fawning over China and that is a mistake – which is it ?
If Putin wanted to F#$K with US elections the easiest thing for him to do would be to convince idiots like you that he was doing so to aide Trump.
As the CloudStrike people testified regarding the DNC hack. It is not possible to tell who hacked anyone today.
Because every nation state and many organizations much smaller than nations has the ability to not just false flag operations, but to false flag over false flag.
Iran was convinced for years that Israel had hacked their Centrefuges – until the snowden material proved it was the US.
Russia does not have the ability to influence DIRECTLY voters to vote for republicans or Trump.
But they can EASILY persuade people like you that they are doing exactly that.
Why ? Because you do not need evidence. And because you are stupid.
Clinton had 50% more money than Trump – she lost. Do you really think that some tiny amount of Russian political adds were more persuasive than 500M in unmatched spending by Clinton ?
Harris blew $1.5B in 107 days and lost again outspending Trump nearly 2:1.
I am very concerned about the forged drivers licenses coming from China in 2020 – that is a tool that could have allowed millions of fake votes.
I have ZERO concern about Russia bots or Chinese bots or Iranian bots persuading voters.
Only left wing nuts seem to be persuaded by stupidity.
The rest of us require FACTS.
What is Russia China or Iran (or NK or …) going to put in an add or post through a bot that is going to change peoples votes ?
So many of your arguments rely on Magic.
Democrats will spend money stealing property – like apartments from the people who actually own it,
and by magic the government will make it work better. This despite the fact that almost no one things that government does ANYTHING well.
You think despite real evidence that Putin favors Trump and so he is going to spend a few million to get him elected. This is an electiont hat Hillary outspends Trump by 50% and 1/2 Billion dollars – but YOU beleive that Magically miniscule spending by Putin flipped the election.
Repeatedly real evidence emerges that lots of Anti-=ICE, Anti-Trump nonsense is being funded by a CCP billionaire, As well as 2/3rd of the violent protestors in France
And you immediately decide that Putin must be changing things in the US ?
Is Puitin engaged in election interfereance ? Absolutely.
Is he accomplishing anything ? Nope.
Is he favoring Trump ? ROFL.
I do not give a schiff what Putin Xi, The gay ayatolah, or Kim Un are posting on social media.
I do care if they are hacking voting equipment or providing forged drivers licenses.
While technically the US constitutional right to free speech does not extent to foreign countries.
As a practicale matter – unless we are prepared to go to war we can do next to nothing to thwart the free speech of a hostile nation in US elections – except that that speech will almost certainly cause a backlash larger than its intended effect.
Can you ever focus on anything that actually matters, that is real ?
For someone who rants so much about democracy – you certainly do not trust people unless you can control everything they see and hear.
If you hate people so much – why bother with voting – just seize power/.
That is what the left typically does.
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
@Grumpy
Though I appreciate your sentiment very much, the modern left don’t care a whit for precedent or law. They will make term limits look like a fantasy if they ever have majority power again. Really, voters: wake up. The old rules do not apply, and talking about nuances such as this are for the moment irrelevant. The modern left does not care, and they will not respect any of it. Save that for another day and for now, keep them out of power.
I actually suspect they will lose, and when they do, they will stop pretending they aren’t instigating a hostile takeover of our country through unelected players (it can’t be termed a coup, because many behind the scenes do not hold offices of any kind). Our system is wonderful – they are not playing by those rules anymore, and likely never will again. To pretend otherwise today is to not be paying enough attention.
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.
X has reading comprehension problems. THat’s why he talks about it so much.
That’s not a reading comprehension problem. It’s called a misreading of a sentence.
Misreading a sentence is just an accidental slip of the eye while skimming. Reading comprehension is the actual ability to understand a concept. But I seriously doubt you understand the difference.
aw, georgie. it’s not this- it’s that!
how original.
So much for reading comprehension.
I read economists project if the child’s family maxes out the yearly contributions, the child stands to have quite the nest egg by the time they are 18 years of age.
I do not expect illiberal Democrats to kill the program . . . but I would not put it past them to tax it.
Gdonaldallen, I stand corrected. It was “for” the 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.
John, your claim that the PPACA is an unmitigated disaster completely falls apart when you look at actual healthcare data and legislative history:
You celebrate that ‘no Republican voted for it’ and that they tried to kill it—but you forget that when they actually tried to pass their own replacement, it failed spectacularly because it would have stripped coverage from over 20 million Americans. The GOP didn’t want a ‘remedy’; they wanted a return to the days when insurance companies had total control over who lived and died. The ACA isn’t a millstone; it’s a foundational safety net.
A massive survey results were just recently made available.
100,000 people in Swing States were surveyed. The survey was conducted door to door – not over the phone or on the web.
As expected – democrats favored democrats, and republicans favored republicans.
But of the almost 25K respondents that were NOT democrats or Republicans – Independents trusted REPUBLICANS by over 10% on the economy.
They also trust republicans by 4:1 to protect Freedom.
I would like to see the rest of the results.
I would like to see the results from other questions.
But the results explain why Democrats are INCREDIBLY unpopular.
we have early information on voting in a FEW states – mostly swing states.
We can not tell how people voted – but we can tell WHO Voted. Whether people who voted are registered republicans or democrats or in states that do not track party – which primary they voted in last.
As expected – more democrats than Republicans are voting by mail. But as I have noted before – The turnout is VERY LOW
I am not sure whether it is 22% below 2022 turn out or it is 22% below PROJECTED Turnout based on the 2022 midterms – but it is WAY LOW.
LOW is USUALLY good for the party out of power. But the advent of large scale mailin voting is changing that.
Further While speculated democrat turnout AS A PERCENT of total turnout is higher than in 2024, it is running nearly 5% BELOW the voter models that the current Polls are based on. The Current polling that projects democrat leads in multiple races is based on a +8 turnout advantage for democrats. The mailin and early voting results so far are only running D+3.5% – to be clear that is NOT mailin voting is currently D+3.5, it is mailin voting is only D+3.5% greater than in 2024 AS A PERCENTAGE.
Trying to simplify this – the Claim that Democrats are ENERGIZED is FALSE.
We do not know and will not know the extent to which Republicans come out to vote until election day.
But the Wall of Mailin ballots that Democrats typically build before election day that the GOP must overcome is 22% SMALLER than the norm.
CNN has repeatedly been projecting that BOTH republicans and Democrats are actually energized.
That does NOT appear to be the case – atleast not for Democrats.
Democrats may still do well – but that depends entirely on Republican Turnout. And republicans do NOT need massive turnout to completely flip this election. If the D+8 model that is being used in the Polls is really only D+3.5 the GOP will easily hold the senate and the house will be close.
REGARDLESS, very large numbers of people are choosing NOT TO VOTE.
And claims that it is Republicans rather than democrats who are not voting appears to be FALSE.
I would further note that FOR ONCE Republcans are going into the last weeks of an election with a MASSIVE fund raising advantage. Republicans have outraised democrats by 50% and they have NOT been spending money until now, they are going into the final weeks with a 2:1 spending advantage.
I do not personally think that money matters all that much – Beyond a certain point.
I do not think it matters whether you spend 20M or 60M on a senate seat.
But purportedly the data shows that the candidate that spent the most nearly always wins.
John Say, is full of it.
You claim a massive 100,000-person door-to-door survey in swing states was “just recently made available” showing Independents favoring Republicans 4:1 on freedom.
This poll simply does not exist. No credible polling agency conducts a 100,000-sample survey door-to-door in the final weeks of an election. It would cost tens of millions of dollars, take months to execute, and be logistically impossible as a fresh snapshot. You are likely confusing political data with a completely unrelated headline—such as the recent Data Center Opposition Report, which noted that over 100,000 people in swing states have joined local grassroots groups opposing hyperscale tech facilities.
High-quality nonpartisan pollsters do not just guess a random “+8” partisan advantage and bake it into a poll. They weight data based on precise demographic metrics and “likely voter” screens. Furthermore, comparing early voting party registration to a poll’s final projected margin is a total math failure. Public data shows early voting numbers are actually surging or breaking records in multiple states, and leading data analysts note that adjusting current early returns actually points to a robust pro-Democratic enthusiasm gap.
When it comes to official campaigns. Across the country, Democratic candidates are heavily outraising Republican incumbents and challengers in crucial House and Senate races. The only area where the GOP has an edge is in outside, dark-money Super PACs, where a tiny handful of billionaire mega-donors—like Elon Musk dumping $276 million in Q3—are pumping in massive sums to artificially rescue struggling, underfunded Republican campaigns.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/22/democrats-republicans-midterms-cash-fundraising-gap-01007270
https://apnews.com/article/elections-house-senate-congress-midterms-trump-387549d4d5e682cf8ce8205d96d07ca7
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.
John Say,
John Say,
The defining trait of Southern Democrats (often called Dixiecrats) was the preservation of Jim Crow, segregation, and white supremacy.source. Their “conservatism” was explicitly about maintaining a strict racial and social hierarchy in the South. To call the architects of segregation “progressives” completely misrepresents history.
The “switch” wasn’t just about a few politicians changing shirts—it was about the entire voting base moving. Princeton and Yale studies show that racially and socially conservative white Southerners began abandoning the Democratic Party en masse the exact moment the national Democratic Party embraced civil rights (starting with Truman in 1948 and accelerating with LBJ in 1964).
Prominent segregationists like Strom Thurman and Jessy Helmes explicitly switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party because of civil rights legislations. The conservative voters who used to elect Dixiecrats didn’t disappear; they became the base of the modern Southern GOP.
Using Robert Byrd as an example of a “progressive racist” ignores his well-documented ideological evolution.
Byrd
was a member of the KKK in the 1940s and filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, as the Democratic Party shifted, Byrd completely renounced his past, called his early racism the greatest mistake of his life, and spent his later decades earning a 100% approval rating from the NAACP.
Republicans didn’t “defeat” Southern conservatives; the Republican Party successfully absorbed the South’s conservative voting base by appealing to states’ rights and social conservatism. Trying to label the defenders of Jim Crow as “leftists” to dodge a messy historical realignment is pure fiction.
@George
No, that’s a load of crap, and I suspect you know it. At least you tried. ‘The parties switched.’ is some very tired BS. Keep shoveling it, though.
They actually did switch. It’s all there in the historical record.
I checked the historical record.
I could not find where Republicans were for slavery. For that matter, it seems Republicans fought a Civil War to end that kind of thing. Democrats fought for slavery. Same goes for ending segregation. Seems Democrats were fighting against that kind of thing during the Civil Rights era.
When was Republicans for things like drag queen story hour? Or against women’s rights, letting men into women’s locker rooms and sports? Cannot find that in the historical record. When were Republicans for defunding the police? When were Republicans for lawlessness? When were Republicans for packing the SC? Passing laws to ensure they never lose an election again? Just read Kamla Harris called for packing the court on Tuesday.
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.
@Upstate
Yup. Nothing to add. Even just 15 years ago, all of it would be unthinkable.
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.
You seem to be saying it’s perfectly reasonable for the majority party in the Senate to refuse to vote on a nominee even before they are named if they feel they won’t like them because they might win the next election and get someone they might like better? Scalia died in February, and the election they hoped to win was in November, with an inauguration the following January. The basis for that was that, in the last year of a presidency, the next president should make the choice.
That theory was totally reversed when Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on September 18,2020 and McConnell rushed to get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed in the 46 days before the election. I have no doubt you know that but are somehow willing to overlook the hypocrisy.
If you’re basing this on your feelings about an opposition to whoever Obama might have selected, your reasoning is purely partisan and political. The appropriate thing would have been to let the nominee come before the Senate and be vetted by the Judiciary Committee and voted on by the full Senate.
I for one was highly disappointed when Garland appeared before the committee after he served as Special Counsel. I don’t know how much he deteriorated after he stopped serving or whether it began earlier. Even then he was in better shape than the Mitch McConnell being wheeled into an occasional Senate vote and told how to vote.
One might say there was no need to worry about the quality of Trump’s nominees his first term because they were all selected by the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation. This time out, Trump is capable of anything, and the current Republican majority has allowed obviously unqualified people to get through, giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. Did anyone in the Senate think Pete Hegseth was qualified to run the Defense Department? Did anyone do their job and say no?
You can disagree with Sherrod Brown’s stance but there is no doubt Mitch McConnell’s and the Republican Party’s short-sighted view in 2016 got us where we are today.
“You seem to be saying it’s perfectly reasonable for the majority party in the Senate”
Absolutely – it is also the norm. Further it goes beyond Justices and includes ALL judges.
All appointments by lame duck presidents with the opposite party controling he senate stall in the last year of their presidency – that is not new. Republicans do it – Democrats have been doing it even longer.
It is not new, it is not a violation of any norm.
“That theory was totally reversed when Ruth Bader Ginsburg died”
Nope – when the president and the party controlling the senate are the SAME exactly the oposite occurs – the Senate RUSHES confirmations – of judges of justices.
None of this is new it has been going on for 250 years.
Marbury vs., Madison is LITERALLY about this.
“If you’re basing this on your feelings”
It is not about feelings – it is about politics and power.
We have a constitution, we have laws, and we have rules and norms.
Within those those with power try to gain the most the can with the power they have.
“Opposition to whoever Obama might have selected, your reasoning is purely partisan and political.”
Correct – it is also legal constitutional and within the rules of the senate and the norms of 250 years of government.
Marbury vs. Madison is Litterally about the confirmation of a federal magistrate by Jefferson as Madison was taking office.
Absolutely this is partisan and political – just as it was 225 years ago. NOTHING NEW HERE.
But everything partisan and political is not constitutional. legal, within the rules. and ethical and moral.
Not confirming presidential appointments is older than the republican party.
“The appropriate thing would have been to let the nominee come before the Senate and be vetted by the Judiciary Committee and voted on by the full Senate.”
False – that is what you WANTED – the appropriate thing is whatever the Senate choses to do that is within the constitution, the law, and the rules of the senate.
REid busted the Fillibuster 2 years earlier. That did violate the rules of the senate.
Sitting on the Garland nomination did not.
“I for one was highly disappointed when Garland appeared before the committee after he served as Special Counsel. I don’t know how much he deteriorated after he stopped serving or whether it began earlier.”
What are you talking about ? You appear to be confusing Garland with Mueller.
Garaland was Biden’s AG – he was blatantly political and incompetent – but not mentally disabled – except by ideology. He proved as AG he would have been a loosy Supreme court justice and we dodged a bullet.
He blessed numeorus highly unconstitutional actions.
“Even then he was in better shape than the Mitch McConnell being wheeled into an occasional Senate vote and told how to vote.” McConnell is just another of many who should have quit a few years earlier.
Absolutely he is an embarrassment. Sop what – so was Biden. McConnell is NOT president, he is not senate majority leader. He is no different from Feinstein and other democrats who served past being cognizant.
SO WHAT ?
If you wish to propose a means of dealing with that – I am all ears. That is not a particularly partisan problem.
There have been demented senators from both parties.
“One might say there was no need to worry about the quality of Trump’s nominees his first term because they were all selected by the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation. “
I find some of them disappointing – because the Federalist society did not pick people who were true conservatives, true originalsists. If they had done their job correctly – you would be even more pi$$ed.
” Did anyone in the Senate think Pete Hegseth was qualified to run the Defense Department? “
I am absolutely fine with Hegseth. Hegseth is a warrior – and that is what was needed to root out the decades of flab in the DOD. He is not the best choice for all times. But he is an excellent choice for right now.
“You can disagree with Sherrod Brown’s stance but there is no doubt Mitch McConnell’s and the Republican Party’s short-sighted view in 2016 got us where we are today.”
Mitch was a pussy cat compared to Harry Reid. You seem to forget who actually broke the fillibuster.
I do not like Thune as majority leader. But he has stuck to the filibuster.
I have no doubt it will be gone in an instant should democrats ever control the house, senate and WH again.
Do you ?
In what world do you think that Chuck Schumer would do different than McConnell if the shies were reversed ? In what world do you think Harry Reid would do different ? Again it is Reid Not McConnell that busted the filibuster – and for 3 unqualified DC court of appeals judges. What a waste.
I completely understand the desite to bypass the filibuster to pass the SAVE act. But to elevate 3 poor judges to the apeals court ? What a waste.
John, it is incredibly difficult to take your lecture on 250 years of constitutional history seriously when you completely invent the facts of the most famous Supreme Court case in American history.
You confidently claim that Marbury v. Madison was ‘literally about the confirmation of a federal magistrate by Jefferson as Madison was taking office.’
That is completely, embarrassingly backward. Marbury vs. Madison happened because outgoing Federalist President John Adams made a series of ‘midnight appointments’ to stack the courts before leaving office. Incoming President Thomas Jefferson didn’t confirm Marbury—he explicitly ordered James Madison not to deliver the commission because he viewed the midnight stacking as an abuse of power.
You claim that sitting on a nominee for a year is a standard 250-year norm. It isn’t. When Mitch McConnell completely blockaded Merrick Garland for 293 days in 2016, it marked the first time in modern U.S. history that a Supreme Court nominee was denied a hearing or a vote entirely under a divided government. Calling a total blockade a standard historical procedure is pure revisionism.
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.
X
you are absolutely correct that politics is about power.
The critical obstacles to its degeneration into pure power are the constitution, the law, traditions, norms and rules.
Absolutely both parties try to game these. But the misbehavior is not uniform.
It is democrats that have repeatedly weakened the filibuster.
Over the past year the GOP had the votes to pass the SAVE act – and it is immensely popular.
Trump begged and threatened GOP senators to get rid of the filibuster entirely and pass it.
Yet they did not.
How long do you think the filibuster will last if Democrats take the senate ?
MAYBE they will not get rid of it right away because they would still face a Trump veto.
But the fillibuster is gone the next time democrats control the house, senate and WH and everyone knows it.
If democrats do manage to take the house and senate in Nov. – the only impediment to absolute idiocy is a presidential veto.
As mush as I think the SAVE act needs not merely to become federal law, but should become a constitutional amendment, I am still happy that Senate Republicans did not toss the filibuster to get it.
It may be political malpractive to refuse to allow the ends to justify the means – but it is the ethical and moral choice.
You rant that Republicans has “stacked the court” – there are more democrat appointed federal judges than republican. Regardless, All these judges were appointed following the “rules of decorum”.
Turley notes the Garland apointment – but I can not recall any instance in which the senate and WH were controlled by different parties where a supreme court justice was confirmed in the presidents last year.
That is NOT some deviation from the norms – it is the norm. Contra the left it is not even a big deal.
Republicans have striven to place the people they wanted on the court. FOLLOWING THE RULES AND NORMS.
It is Democrats that have changed the rules when they could not accomplish what they wanted
Absolutely both parties want to appoint as many judges and justices as possible.
But it is ALWAYS the left that bends and breaks the rules.
Obama’s dreamers has no basis in US law. Bidens wiping out student loans has no basis in law, Biden letting possibly as many as 21M illegals into the country has no basis in law.
And I can go on and on.
Those of you on the left expect republicans to not only follow the law and constitution and norms to the letter – but to YOUR perception of the letter – regardless of what the constitution, the law or the norms actually are.
Trump fired people – and YOU took that to SCOTUS claiming he could not. But Biden fired people – sometimes exactly the same positions, as did Obama and Bush and ..
This is not new – but the law fare dragging a stupid claim all the way tot he supreme court – that was new and typical of the left.
Contra your idiocy – Alternate slates of electors have been legitimate and blessed by the courts since the mid 19th century. VP Nixon accepted the alternate slate of electors from HI in the 1960 election. But YOU on the left tried to send people to jail for doing something the courts have said is REQUIRED to challenge an election. And you are still ranting about it.
Conversely YOU tried to use a lunatic misinterpretation fo the 14th amendment to keep Trump off the ballot in 2024. Yet the history AND TEXT of the 14th amendment is RESTRICTING the power of the states – not expanding it.
A14S5 The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Nowhere in the 14th amendment is any state given a grant of power to do anything. Not the state legislature, not the governor, not the state constitution, not some random idiot appointed by the governor.
As ALWAYS it is the LEFT that destroys the norms, the law, that allows the ends to justify the means.
Hochul was repeatedly slapped in the NY Governors debate over her disasterous sanctuary policies.
While there is no LAW requiring states and cities to turn criminals who are also illegal aliens over to ICE rather than release them onto the streets where they can terrorize people with machettes, it is ABSOLUTELY the duty of state government to assure the safety of CITIZENS – not Criminals. It is not a violation of the law for a state governor to fail to cooperate with an ICE detainer – but it IS an impeachable offense – it IS a violation of the social contract, it IS a violation of centuries of NORMS.
You define Republican bold political power grabbing as accomplishing political goals WHILE FOLLOWING THE RULES. Then YOU JUSTIFY not following the rules because Republicans are political. Of course they are.
They are also 10 times as inclinded to follow the rules.
Just to be clear – Republicans did not “nuke the fillibister” – Harry Reid did under Obama in Nov. 2013 to confirm a few very controversial federal judges.
None other than Mitch McConnell told Reid at the time that Democrats would live to regret that.
In 2014 mid terms the GOP flipped 9 senate seats and 14 house seats.
The Filibuster WAS a binding rule – until Democrats decided it was not. The last vestages of the filibuster are still holding – but only because Republicans are chosing to remain bound. Is there anyone that doubts that even that will be gone the next time Democrats have control fo the WH, senate and house ?
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.
X
First – Democrats only talk about bipartisanship when they are losing.
I am NOT a big fan of Bi-partisanship. I am not a big fan of compromise – especially with respect to Government.
You do not compromise over rights.
Further even outside of Govenrment – compromise does not make things better, it makes them worse and harder to get rid of.
“A Camel Is a Horse That Was Designed by a Committee”
Legislation that is clear and uncomplicated – atleast not more complicated than it needs to be is superior to massive legislation. Even Bad legislation that is atleast clear and easy to understand is supperior to the messes that are produced by compromise or bi-partisanship.
Mutal give and take is a BAD idea.
Where is bi-partisanship valuable ? When there is no need for “give and take” – because all sides are agreed.
As James Carville has said – the SAVE act is passing eventually anyway – 80% of people want it. Democrats should get out of the way and pass it.
That is what GOOD Bi-Partisanship means.
You are idiotically fixated on Trump.
But if you think, that things are changing in 2028 – your smoking meth.
Trump does not own the GOP because he is charasmatic – though he is in a way.
He owns it because he has tapped into a large body of the electorate and is giving them what they want.
That is true in policies,
It is also true in Style.
What you call the MAGA voter – the working class americans,
Feel that they have been pi$$ed on and victimized by BOTH parties – but especially democrats over the pas 40 years.
You rant about Trumps Tariffs and Trade wars – but these people WANT that conflict.
They WANT the conflicts that Trump starts.
The want them – because they feel like they have been on the losing end of ALL deals over the past 40 years – and not just trade deals.
Those of you on the left – make promises of free things – but you sell out their jobs, you sell out their freedom, you sell out their 2A rights, you screw them over at every change.
While they are not the majority of americans – they are a very large portion of MAGA and the single most powerful political force in the US today.
And they are NOT going away.
Democrats are trying to make a coalition of what is left – that is incredibly hard, because being unhappy with the Chaos that Trump and MAGA supporters bring is NOT much in the way of common ground.
In Trump’s first term he practically drive NeoCons from the GOP.
His far muscular Foreign policy is bringing them back
Absolutely in places like Maine Republicans can not run on MAGA to win. Just like Democrats can not run on DSA nonsense to win in much of the country.
But MAGA is not going away – even it Trump does.
The Next Republican Candidate – whether Vance, Rubio, Destantis or someone else is going to be as similar to Trump in policies and behavior as they can manage – as that is the winning recipe for Republicans.
While there will be differences – no two people are alike, and MAGA will evolve.
Trump will still be the Repubican Model candidate in much of the country for likely the next Decade.
Further despite the turmoil that Democrats and the far left are causing – Trump will be leaving office with a RISING party – not like Obama with a party significantly weaker. Hillary lost because no one wanted an Obama 3rd term.
The reasons that Trump dominatesd the GOP have not changed.
If Trump died tomorow – someone very nearly the same would fill his shoes.
Eventually what irratates you about Trump will fade – but there is no signs of that anytime soon.
And for now – Republicans are MOSTLY expanding their base while Democrats shrink theirs.
John Say,
Well said.
The MAGA idea has been around long before Trump came along, before he was even born. There was a degree of pride in America and being an American. Trump just so happened to tap into something and made a nifty campaign slogan. Those Republicans who did not get on board with MAGA, found themselves on the outside. Some establishment Republicans like Mitch McConnel need to retire. Same could be said about some establishment Democrats. MAGA is not going away anytime soon. The funny thing is, with the stupid and crazy illiberal Democrats and DSA, only makes MAGA that much more attractive to not only the Republican base, but to Independents and those moderate Democrats who do not like where their party is going. I never thought I would see the day were Bill Maher publicly announced his vote was up for grabs and he would vote for a Republican given the stupid and crazy his party has embraced.
“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.
X has plenty of imaginary friends: Svelaz, George, Natacha, Gigi, Sally, Esquire, Wally, Esquire. True they are all him but dont tell him he is is giving independents a reason to reject DemoRats
Different topic, same screed. Mr. Crement just keeps writing the same shopworn essay over and over again.
X
Selective Memory ?
ROFL
Lets start with what the left did to Clarnce Thomas ?
Or Harry Reid busing the Fillibuster in 2013 – 3 years BEFORE 2016.
Regardless 2016 was NORMAL behavior.
Is there a person here who doubts that Schumer or Reid would not have confirmed a Republican presidents nominee in the last year before a presidential election.
Supreme court nominees in the last year of a presidents term, when the opposite party is controlling the senate are not a frequent occurrence – but when they occur – the seat remains vacant until after the election.
That is the NORM.
What brown is proposing is a dangerous expansion of the same thing – 2 years instead of one, and all judicial nominees not just supreme court justices – though the senate often plays games delaying the confirmation of judges – that is not at all new.
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?
exist
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.
Says the anonymous. You offer nothing. Next.
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.
What moderate and traditional Democrats need to do is kick out the illiberal, stupid and crazy that has taken over the Democrat party.
==
We also need cheap air fares, achieved by the suspension of gravity.
==
Democrats who understood themselves to be competing in a public square and bound by regular rules of competition are retired and no longer influential in the Democratic Party. You have a scatter of dissenters like Alan Dershowitz and Bari Weiss. That’s it.
Sounds like the Red Russians and White Russians are at it again.
“Respectfully”
I second.