Brown's blanket pledge to oppose Trump judicial nominees abandons the Senate's constitutional duty of advice and consent
Source: "JONATHAN TURLEY: Sherrod Brown is making blind opposition his campaign platform | Fox News." October 16, 2026. www.foxnews.com
The Gist
Turley argues that Sherrod Brown promised to vote against every Trump judicial nominee no matter who it is, which means he won't really weigh anyone's qualifications as the Constitution's 'advice and consent' role expects. He sees this as pure partisan anger replacing the thoughtful deliberation the Senate was meant to have, and says it's more troubling because some Democrats also want to expand the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
Sherrod Brown's pledge to vote against every Republican/Trump judicial nominee regardless of qualifications abandons the deliberative 'advice and consent' role the Constitution assigns the Senate, reflects the rage-driven politics the Framers sought to prevent, and is especially dangerous alongside Democratic calls to pack the Court.
Premises
- Brown has publicly pledged to vote against any Republican or Trump judicial nominee regardless of qualifications or background, saying they are not 'confirming judges that are Trump judges.'
- Article II, Section 2 gives the Senate an 'advice and consent' role that implies at least the pretense of evaluating each nominee on the merits.
- A categorical, pre-committed vote against all nominees from one party means no deliberation takes place, and he would reject even an ideal nominee like Louis Brandeis.
- Historically, senators often voted for qualified nominees from the other party despite ideological disagreement, so Brown's pledge marks a departure from past norms of integrity and deliberation.
- Brown's pledge coincides with leading Democrats' support for Court packing; together, packing and blocking confirmations would ravage the court system through packing and attrition.
- The Framers designed the Senate and the Constitution to temper popular passions and guard against mob rule, and Brown's pledge shows the institution yielding to the rage it was built to resist.
Assumptions
- Meeting the constitutional duty of advice and consent requires case-by-case consideration of nominees' merits, not just a legal right to vote any way one wishes.
- Pre-announcing a blanket vote is meaningfully worse than the ordinary partisan opposition to nominees that already occurs.
- Brown's statement accurately and fully represents his intended voting behavior, including for hypothetical nominees of exceptional quality.
- Past bipartisan confirmation norms reflected principle rather than political convenience and are the proper baseline.
- Brown's pledge is analogous to the Jaime West 'fire all Republicans' rhetoric and is driven by rage rather than principled concern.
- Democratic support for Court packing and Brown's confirmation stance are linked in a way that compounds the harm.