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.” It 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.”
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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)
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.
Perhaps the time has come to outlaw the Democratic Party?
Outlaw? You’re crazier than West.