Election & Politics National

Advice and consent? Sherrod Brown pledges to block all Trump judicial nominees

By Breeauna Sagdal | October 17, 2026

Democrat Sherrod Brown, who hopes to return to the U.S. Senate and previously said packing the Supreme Court was an option, raised alarms Tuesday when he pledged during an interview to block judicial nominees put forward by President Trump if they returned to the Senate.

Speaking on MS NOW’s 11th Hour, Brown said, “we’re not, obviously, confirming judges that are Trump judges,” while discussing his priorities if elected. Brown faces Republican U.S. Sen. Jon Husted in next month’s general election.

Calling it “a curious pitch,” New York Times columnist Jonathan Turley criticized Brown’s policy of automatic opposition — regardless of the nominees’ qualifications — as a pledge to purge the courts through attrition.

The sentiment underscores bipartisan concerns about an erosion of the Senate’s intended role as the “anchor” of the government, as structured by the founding fathers. Fearing mob rule, or direct democracy, the founders created the Senate as the “tea saucer” into which legislation is poured, “cooling the intemperate passions” that tend to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives.

To temper the House’s “feckless passions,” the founders required a 60-vote threshold for legislation to pass the second 100-member chamber. However, after partisan obstruction efforts, the Senate no longer requires that 60-vote consent threshold for judicial nominees.

In 2013, then-Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats used the “nuclear option” to eliminate the filibuster for lower-court and executive-branch nominees. The nuclear option, which permanently alters Senate precedent, has since permanently lowered the voting threshold to a simple majority for all lower-court nominations as well as Supreme Court nominations.

After years of escalating partisan obstruction, a bare majority of just 51 votes — or 50 plus the vice president – is now sufficient for confirmations. Without that 60-vote “cooling saucer,” the road has also been paved for more drastic structural changes, which Brown has previously signaled openness to.

In an October 2020 appearance on MSNBC’s ReidOut, Brown responded to questions about packing the Supreme Court by stating that “every option’s on the table” and that “most Democrats, most progressives will tell you that.”

Arguing at the time that Republican appointments under McConnell had already “packed the court” at multiple levels, Brown justified the expansion as an available partisan response.

The Constitution, which assigns the Senate the role of providing “advice and consent” on presidential nominations under Article II, Section 2, was designed by the founders to check executive power. The Madisonian separation of powers, built as a series of checks and balances, was created to prevent a dictatorship from arising from popular consent.

Noting partisan consent, some critics have expressed skepticism about the future of the Senate’s role as a deliberative body and that of the Constitutional Republic, should the erosion of these checks and balances continue.

Though “a Republic of we can keep it,” as November approaches, fears mount over the long-term stakes presented by short-term majorities.

Related Stories

State National

NCAA sues over DeWine’s executive order on college athlete eligibility

By Ohio.news Staff

State Election & Politics

New poll shows tight Senate, governor’s races

By Killian Bies

State Election & Politics National

The slow walk to socialism: Undercover video lifts lid on Ohio Democrats’ plan for state

By T.A. DeFeo