JONATHAN TURLEY: Sherrod Brown's pledge turns advice and consent into a punchline
- Ohio's Sherrod Brown pledges blanket NO on any Trump judicial pick, qualifications be damned.
- Promises to vote against even a hypothetical Louis Brandeis if nominated by Trump — rage over reason, folks.
- Comes as Dems flirt with court packing; critics warn of a judicial apocalypse via attrition.
- In a state Trump won three times, Brown's gambit is either bold politics or brave kamikaze.
- GOP's beloved 'world's greatest deliberative body' now just a screaming match on C-SPAN.
Brief Summary
Senator Sherrod Brown has officially thrown the Constitution's advice and consent clause into a woodchipper, vowing to reject any Republican judicial nominee sight unseen — even, he says, if the ghost of Louis Brandeis rises from the grave to take the bench. This isn't your garden-variety partisan obstruction; this is a full-throated, ears-closed, "I just don't like them" pledge straight out of the Jaime West school of political discourse. The timing is deliciously alarming, as Democrats simultaneously whisper sweet nothings about court-packing, suggesting a two-front assault on the judiciary that would make even Ruth Bader Ginsburg spin in her robe. Brown's own Ohio voters, who've backed Trump thrice, might be forgiven for wondering if their senator has confused his state with California. But hey, who needs deliberation when you have righteous fury and a camera-ready soundbite? The Senate, once the 'world's greatest deliberative body,' has devolved into a petulant toddlers' tantrum, and Brown is proudly leading the playdate.
Why This Matters
This isn't just politicking; it's a constitutional shrug masquerading as a campaign strategy. If Brown's pledge catches fire, the judiciary becomes a partisan ping-pong ball where the only question is whose team is serving. For the average American, this means federal benches could sit hollow for years, gutting the courts' ability to deliver justice — or at least, to clear its backlog of cases on time. And if court-packing gets added to the mix, you're looking at a Supreme Court that's less a venerated institution and more a legislative hostage negotiation. The real kicker? Brown's gambit might even work, which is the scariest part: voters love a good middle finger to the other side, regardless of collateral damage to the republic. So buckle up, because 'advice and consent' is now 'advice and discontent,' and the only thing getting confirmed is our collective cynicism.