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 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.”
Evantual result of making the Senate subject to the whim of voters. The framers intended it to represent each state governmnet not the people.
Turley Writes:
“The Senate was called the ‘world’s greatest deliberative body.’ The phrase attributed to former President James Buchanan in 1867.
…………………………….
Buchanan may have said that in 1857 (not 1867).
Buchanan had just taken office in 1857 when the Supreme Court passed the infamous Dred Scott decision.
Historians believe that decision was leaked to Buchanan days before he took office. Nevertheless, Buchanan, from Pennsylvania, embraced Dred Scott only to discover that fellow northerners bitterly opposed it.
One wonders if some of the decisions from the Roberts Court will rank with Dred Scott in terms of infamy. Like Citizens United, for instance, which allowed billionaires to take over American elections.
The objection to Citizens United had little to do with ‘billionaires’ and a great deal to do with freedoms which are enjoyed by corporations. The Democrats fancy that such freedoms should be limited to corporations which favor the Democratic Party.
The above is ‘not’ but Estovir.
McConnell’s block of Merrick Garland’s nomination was a disgraceful hole punched in the Constitution to block the POTUS’s nomination power. The fact that no one could legally block a Senate exercise of its own rules as it saw fit is not a defense.
Brown should be advocating a constitutional amendment to fill in this loophole. In the meantime, he is making himself the defender of an anti-democratic and corrupt 2-party system that is actively self-immolating.
I’m the one who wrote the comment below about Garland – and I happen to agree with you 100%. My point was only to highlight how Turley only referees one side of the field so as to not upset his readers or lose book sales. He’s not interested in telling the whole story – and whereas there was a time when you could trust him to give a more fair balanced appraisal of a story, that time has long since passed. He’s not about to bite the hand that feeds him.
It wasn’t a constitutional violation at all, nor was it disgraceful. Garland was left in peace and told he had to stay on the court of appeals for some months pending action by the subsequent Congress.
Actively searching the Turley archives for when he expressed similar outrage at how Republicans refused to have confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland which resulted in the SCOTUS being absent one member for 422 days – effectively packing it through absentia…..Darn – why can’t I find the post where this also infuriated him? Oh right, I keep forgetting. Turley’s a hypocrite.
I am sure you won’t consider it “similar outrage” but a search of Garland 2016 on this blog shows Turley twice saying that Garland deserved a hearing and a vote. Not hard to find.
Leftist’s see Brown’s position and call it, “tolerance”. 🙄
Mr. Benisch doesn’t have to show the playbook. We see it every day.
It’s way past time to try for treason all democrats who align with their party’s secessionist platform. These people are either insane or evil, but either way, they cannot be a part of any governmental body in the US because they’re communists!
I had a dream that the Trump family was shot by firing squad, just like the Romanov family.
You are filled with evil–find an exorcist ASAP!
And you’re telling us about your dreams just why?
I thought that s@@tlibs like yourself were against the death penalty. Does this only apply to application of the death penalty for murderers? I have a feeling that you and others similarly situated would have no problem with the execution of anyone to the right of Lenin.
Help me out s@@tlibs? What did I miss?
antonio
@Anonymous
Yeah, smoking meth can have that effect. If you give it time, it’ll wear off.
You people are so full of hate, it’s unbelievable. You really need help.
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.
==
The disposition you’re lauding applies in situations when the judiciary – and the appellate judiciary in particular – abstain from making use of bits of phraseology in the constitution to impose their preferred social policy. The inclination to do this has been quite asymmetrical, btw. Objections to it hardly arise from our law faculties anymore, which tells you something about the civic desirability of them.
Quote: pledging to “fire all Republicans” because “I just do like them.”
Good Lord, this essay really needs a proofreader. At least a dozen errors. That said, if a Supreme Court justice needs replacing, expect a Battle Royale.
Turley does use Grammarly, but it seems he’s not using it consistently. If he did, those grammatical errors wouldn’t be such an issue.
Why do you care ?
Honestly ? When you start attacking punctation and grammar on internet posts you are flying a giant flag that says “I got nothing else”
I think the West story is interesting and it is gathering a massive amount of attention – particularly on the right.
It confirms what MAGA thinks about many democrats.
But it is not otherwise consequential. It is fun. But it is not changing any election but Wests.
As to Brown – I am disturbed by what he is saying. I think it is a mistake to say that in what is now a red state like OH, But it is also not a new revalation. If Democrats take the senate – they are not confirming anyone for dog catcher. I do not think the brown remarks are a huge deal – because there is no voter with more than two braiun cells that does not already KNOW that with control of the senate stopping confirmations – particularly of Judges is the LEAST that democrats are going to do.
Further while I think it is a mistake politically – NOT because it is outside their power, NOT because it is unconstitutional or outside of norms, but because it is NOT what any outside of the far left want to hear and there are more voters in OH that will be turned off than will be turned on.
But whether Brown says this or not – it is going to happen if Democrats take the senate.
And it would atleast similarly happen if Republicans controlled the Senate with a Democrat president.
Democrats will slow walk or stall Trump judicial appointments specifically for the next 2 years if they get the senate. It is pretty close tot he ONLY meaningful impact they will have.
And Republicans would do the same if the situation was reversed.
But that is NOT what voters want to here.
YOU are here shilling for bi-partisanship.
PLEASE. Most of us are barfing soda through our noses laughing at the absurdity of that.
You want Bipartisanship – pass the SAVE act – 80% of the country wants it.
You want Bipartisanship – get behind deportations – 56% of the country wants EVERY illegal deported.
80% of the country wants every criminal illegal deported.
You want ICE to wear body-cams – fine got no problems with that.
You want them not to wear masks – fine put the same protections for federal law enforcement in place we have for supreme court justices. Go after an ICE agent off the job or their family and go to jail. They are wearing masks because you people are nuts and dangerous.
Regardless there are LOTS of things that supermajorities of americans want that should be easy to pass.
The impediment to that is DEMOCRATS. And it always has been.
Those of you on the left think bi-partisanship[ means Republicans voting for bills that no one in their right mind should be voting for that have no one supporting.
“At least a dozen errors.” —
is a fragment
Good Lord do you think anybody gives a holy crap about your complaint? Tell your therapist about it. Maybe you can get your Prozac dose increased
You should go to the learing center!