Jonathan Turley: Sherrod Brown's commitment turns advice and satisfaction into a staple

Rep. Sherrod Brown of Ohio pledged to vote against any Trump judicial nominee, regardless of qualifications, and waived his Senate advisory and consent duties.

The hosts of the Ruthless podcast revealed that Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown is against the release of American prisoners

The hosts of the "Ruthless" podcast revealed a letter to the editor written by Democratic Ohio Senate candidate Sherrod Brown, in which he opposed the release of American prisoners of war during the Vietnam War.

In Ohio, Sherrod Brown rounded out Jimmy West this week on the US Senate campaign trail. West is the Indiana candidate who became a viral subject for pledging to "fire all Republicans" because "I don't like them." Brown seems eager to jump on the same outrage train, pledging to vote against any Republican judicial nominee, regardless of their background.

Brown has literally pledged to abdicate the constitutional duty of "consultation and consent" under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution and will blindly vote for whoever is nominated by President Trump because he doesn't like him.

Brown told MS NOW that "we obviously don't endorse judges who are Trump judges." Unfortunately, it is common for senators from the opposite party to vote against presidential nominees. However, they at least maintain the pretense of "advice and consent". Brown is trying to win the race all the way by saying that Trump can nominate Louis Brandeis, and he will still vote for him because he is a Trump judicial nominee.

Kamala Harris wants to expand the Supreme Court, add states if Democrats take part in Congress

Brown appears to be channeling Jimmy West, who admitted he "doesn't even talk to them" and hates Republicans.

It's an odd commitment in a state that voted for Trump three times and is Republican.

What's most troubling is that the commitment comes as leading Democrats line up in favor of filling the court. This combination could wreak havoc on our court system through congestion and attrition. Brown simply won't confirm any new judges as a way to reduce Republican judges on the bench.

Brown and his colleagues have absolute discretion in voting for judicial nominees, including doing so on a strictly partisan basis. They also have the right to not vote on a nomination, as was the case with Merrick Garland's nomination. While I also criticized the no-vote on Garland, it was within the Senate's discretion to waive such a vote.

The Senate was once called "the world's largest advisory body." A phrase attributed to former President James Buchanan in 1867 is often repeated today like a slogan by senators who have abandoned serious deliberation in favor of endless demonstrations. Now, Brown is actually running on a "no consult" commitment.

The Supreme Court begins a new era with fresh questions about its legitimacy and future

I'm old enough to remember when senators routinely voted for judges of opposing parties and ideologies out of political integrity. For decades, senators have insisted that they must vote for A if they are eligible, even if they disagree with their liberal or conservative legal views.

British Prime Minister William Gladstone in his famous 1878 book Kinsmen Beyond the Sea referred to the US Senate as "that remarkable body, the most remarkable invention of modern politics, the Senate of the United States".

With Brown, even the pretense of deliberation is over. He has pledged not to consider the merits of candidates in keeping with his oath of "consultation and consent" on nominations. Joining Jimmy West, he declares that he doesn't like them and therefore won't talk to them.

Now the senators seem to be offering voters pure and unadulterated anger. 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 captive to the blind emotions it was designed to resist.

Brown's commitment is a poignant moment for the August institution. It was designed to be a bulwark against the mob, an institution to moderate emotions, not subdue them. Indeed, in his last farewell to the Senate in 1805, Aaron Burr declared, "If the Constitution should be destroyed by the insulting hand of a demagogue or usurper, God forbid, its finished sufferings will be seen in this class."

He is the author of the new book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution (Simon & Schuster, February 3, 2026), on the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution. On the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution.

He is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively on subjects ranging from constitutional law to legal history to the Supreme Court. He has written more than three dozen academic articles that have been published in a variety of leading legal journals.

Professor Turley has also served as counsel in some of the most high-profile cases of the last two decades, including representing whistleblowers, military personnel, former cabinet members, judges, members of Congress, and a wide range of other clients.

Professor Turley has testified more than 50 times before the House and Senate on constitutional and legislative issues, including Senate confirmation hearings of cabinet members and jurists such as Judge Neil Gorsuch. He also appeared as an expert witness at both the impeachment hearings of Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump.

Professor Turley received his B.A. at the University of Chicago and his J.D. at Northwestern. In 2008, he was awarded an honorary doctorate of laws from the John Marshall School of Law for his contributions to civil liberties and the public interest.

Get roundups of top reviews and original content throughout the week.