In an opinion article published Oct. 16, 2026, Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley criticized Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown for saying he would oppose President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees. Turley characterized Brown’s position as a commitment to vote against nominees without weighing their qualifications or records.
Turley cited an interview Brown gave to MS NOW, quoting him as saying, “we’re not, obviously, confirming judges that are Trump judges.” The source material does not provide the full interview or additional context from Brown. It also contains no response from Brown or his campaign to Turley’s criticism.
Turley argued that Brown’s pledge conflicts with the Senate’s constitutional role in considering nominations. Article II, Section 2 gives the Senate authority to provide advice and consent on presidential nominations. Turley said senators may oppose nominees on partisan grounds, or decline to vote, but contended that Brown was making the absence of individual consideration an explicit campaign position.
The article compares Brown’s remarks with those of Jaime West, an Indiana candidate whom Turley says drew attention for pledging to “fire all Republicans.” Turley uses the comparison to argue that political campaigns are increasingly presenting opposition to the other party as a reason in itself, rather than discussing the merits of particular candidates.
Turley also places Brown’s statement in the context of debate over the Supreme Court’s size. He refers to support among some Democrats for expanding the court and warns that court expansion combined with a refusal to confirm nominees could reshape the federal judiciary. The article does not identify specific supporters or proposals in this passage, and it offers no analysis from proponents of court expansion.
To support his argument about the Senate’s traditions, Turley recalls that senators have at times voted for judicial nominees from the opposing party. He invokes the description of the Senate as the “world’s greatest deliberative body,” and quotes British Prime Minister William Gladstone’s 1878 praise of the institution. Turley presents these historical references as contrasts with what he sees as contemporary partisan conduct.
The article further notes the 2016 nomination of Merrick Garland, saying the Senate did not hold a vote. Turley says he criticized that decision while also acknowledging that the Senate had authority to forgo a vote. He uses the episode to distinguish the Senate’s ability to withhold action from Brown’s stated intention, as Turley interprets it, to reject nominees categorically.
Turley’s conclusion is a warning about the effects of political anger on constitutional institutions. Referring to his book, “Rage and the Republic,” he argues that the Constitution was designed to restrain popular passions and keep government from becoming what Benjamin Rush called a “mobocracy.” He closes with a quotation attributed to Aaron Burr about the danger of demagoguery to the Senate.
The piece is commentary, not a report presenting both sides of the dispute. Its central claim—that Brown would oppose every Trump judicial nominee without regard to qualifications—is Turley’s interpretation of the quoted interview remark. The supplied text does not include a detailed statement from Brown clarifying how he would evaluate nominees.
