Brown’s Controversial Senate Campaign Pledge

This week, in Ohio, Sherrod Brown is making waves in his U.S. Senate campaign by echoing sentiments similar to those of Jaime West, an Indiana candidate who stirred up attention for declaring she would “fire all Republicans” because she simply doesn’t like them. Brown seems to be hungry to board the same train of outrage, committing to vote against any Republican judicial nominee, no matter their qualifications or history.

Essentially, Brown’s stance indicates he is willing to disregard the constitutional obligation of “advice and consent” required under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, vowing to oppose any nominee from President Trump based purely on personal disdain for him.

During an interview with MS NOW, Brown stated, “we’re not, obviously, confirming judges that are Trump judges.” While it’s not unusual for senators from opposing parties to reject a President’s nominees, they typically maintain some semblance of the “advice and consent” principle. Brown’s approach seems to aim lower, suggesting even a nominee as reputable as Louis Brandeis would be dismissed simply because he was put forward by Trump.

Interestingly, this bold pledge comes from a senator in a state that has historically voted for Trump. It raises eyebrows, especially with notable Democrats advocating for expanding the Supreme Court. The combination of these attitudes could have significant consequences for the judicial system, potentially leading to a reduction of Republican judges simply through refusal to confirm new nominees.

Senators like Brown have the discretion to vote strictly along partisan lines when it comes to judicial nominations. They also can choose to abstain from voting altogether, as seen during Merrick Garland’s nomination process. Although many criticized that decision, it was technically within the Senate’s rights to choose to bypass a vote.

Once, the Senate was referred to as the “world’s greatest deliberative body.” That phrase, originally credited to former President James Buchanan, is often recited by senators who now seem to prioritize performative politics over genuine discussions. In contrast, Brown appears to be running on a platform devoid of any deliberative process.

I can recall a time when senators from both parties often supported judicial appointees from the opposite side, out of a sense of political integrity. For many years, it was standard practice for senators to support qualified nominees, regardless of their ideological leanings.

British Prime Minister William Gladstone once described the U.S. Senate as “that remarkable body,” an assertion echoed over the years. Yet today, with Brown’s approach, even the pretense of thorough evaluation seems to have vanished. He’s declaring he won’t assess the merits of any nominees while fulfilling his duty to provide “advice and consent.” Much like Jaime West, he’s making it clear that he simply doesn’t like them, and that’s enough for him.

It feels like senators are now handing voters pure, unabashed anger. In my discussion in “Rage and the Republic,” I reflect on how the Framers crafted our Constitution to prevent democracy from devolving into what Benjamin Rush termed mobocracy. Yet, we now find ourselves increasingly captive to blind passions, the very thing the Constitution was designed to guard against.

Brown’s pledge represents a concerning moment for a once-revered institution, originally created to withstand mob mentality and temper extreme emotions. Aaron Burr, in his farewell from the Senate in 1805, warned that if the Constitution were ever to perish at the hands of a demagogue, that demise would unfold on the Senate floor.