在俄亥俄州，谢罗德·布朗本周在其竞选美国参议员的过程中完全效仿了杰米·韦斯特的做法。杰米·韦斯特是印第安纳州的候选人，因宣称“要解雇所有共和党人”并声称“我就是不喜欢他们”而迅速走红。如今，布朗似乎也急于借这股愤怒情绪来博取关注，他承诺无论共和党司法提名人的资历与背景如何，自己都会投反对票。
In Ohio, Sherrod Brown went full Jaime West this week in his U.S. Senate campaign West is the Indiana candidate who became a viral sensation for pledging to "fire all Republicans" because "I just don't like them." Brown appears to be eager to jump on the same rage train and pledged that he will vote against any Republican judicial nominee regardless of their qualifications or background.
实际上，布朗是在公然放弃《美国宪法》第二条第二款所规定的“建议与同意”这一宪法义务，仅仅因为不喜欢特朗普，便打算盲目反对总统提名的任何人选。
Brown is literally pledging that he will toss away the constitutional duty of "advice and consent" under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and vote blindly against anyone nominated by President Trump because he does not like him.
布朗在接受MS NOW采访时称：“显然，我们不会批准那些属于‘特朗普派’的法官人选。”诚然，反对党派的参议员投票反对总统提名人选的情况屡见不鲜，但他们至少还会维持“建议与同意”这一程序的表面形式。而布朗则试图以极端手段来博取选票：他声称即便特朗普提名的是路易斯·布兰代斯这样的大法学家，自己也会因对方是特朗普提名的司法人选而投反对票。
Brown told MS NOW that "we’re not, obviously, confirming judges that are Trump judges." Unfortunately, it is common for senators of the opposing party to vote against a president's nominees. However, they at least preserve the pretense of "advice and consent." Brown is trying to win the race to the bottom by saying that Trump could nominate Louis Brandeis, and he would still vote against him because he is a Trump judicial nominee.
卡玛拉·哈里斯呼吁若民主党掌控国会便扩大最高法院规模并增加大法官名额。布朗此举显然是在效仿杰米·韦斯特——后者曾坦言自己“甚至不愿和共和党人说话”，并且对共和党人深恶痛绝。
KAMALA HARRIS CALLS TO EXPAND SUPREME COURT, ADD STATES IF DEMS TAKE CONGRESS Brown seems to be channeling Jaime West, who admitted that she does "not even talk to them" and hates Republicans.
俄亥俄州可是曾三次投票支持特朗普的共和党大本营，布朗在此地做出这样的承诺实在令人费解。更令人担忧的是，就在众多民主党要员纷纷支持扩充最高法院规模之际，布朗也做出了类似表态。这种做法若成真，必将通过增加大法官人数与减少现有法官数量双重手段严重破坏美国的司法体系。布朗的意图很明显：通过拒绝批准任何新大法官人选来减少联邦法院中的共和党派法官数量。
It is a curious pledge in a state that voted for Trump three times and is Republican. What is most concerning is that this pledge is made as leading Democrats are lining up in favor of packing the Court The combination would ravage our court system through packing and attrition. Brown would simply not confirm any new judges as a way of reducing Republican judges on the bench.
布朗和他的同事在对司法提名人进行投票时拥有绝对的自由裁量权，包括可以完全基于党派立场进行投票。他们也有权不对提名人进行投票，就像默里克·加兰德提名的情况一样。虽然我也批评了对加兰德不进行投票的失败，但参议院有权放弃这样的投票。
Brown and his colleagues are given absolute discretion in casting their votes on judicial nominees including doing so on a strictly partisan basis. They also have the right not to vote on a nominee, as was the case of the nomination of Merrick Garland While I also criticized the failure to vote on Garland, it was within the authority of the Senate to forego such a vote.
曾经有一段时间，参议院被称为“世界上最伟大的审议机构”。这句话归因于前总统詹姆斯·布坎南在1867年所说，如今常被参议员们当作座右铭反复引用，尽管他们已经放弃了严肃的审议，转而进行无尽的示威。如今，布朗实际上正在以“无审议”为承诺参选。
There was a time when the Senate was called the "world’s greatest deliberative body." The phrase attributed to former President James Buchanan in 1867 is often repeated today like a mantra by senators who have dispensed with serious deliberations in favor of endless demonstrations. Now, Brown is actually running on a "no deliberation" pledge.
最高法院在新任期伊始便因其合法性和未来而引发新的质疑。我年纪足够大，能够记得参议员们曾经 routinely 为来自其他党、不同意识形态的法官投出支持票，作为政治诚信的体现。几十年来，参议员们坚持认为，即使他们不同意提名人的自由派或保守派司法观点，只要提名人具备资格，他们就有义务投支持票。
SUPREME COURT KICKS OFF NEW TERM WITH FRESH QUESTIONS OVER ITS LEGITIMACY AND ITS FUTURE I am old enough to remember when senators routinely voted for judges from the other party and different ideologies as a matter of political integrity. For many decades, senators insisted that they were bound to vote for a nominee if they were qualified even if they disagreed with their liberal or conservative jurisprudential views.
在威廉·格莱斯顿著名的1878年著作《海外亲戚》中，英国首相威廉·格莱斯顿曾称美国参议院为“那个非凡的机构，是现代政治所有发明中最非凡的——美利坚合众国参议院”。如今，随着布朗的出现，甚至审议的假象也已经不复存在。他承诺在履行对提名提出“建议和同意”的誓言时，不会考虑提名人的资质。他与杰米·韦斯特一起宣布，他只是不喜欢这些提名人，因此他不会与他们交谈。
In his famous 1878 "Kin Beyond the Sea," British Prime Minister William Gladstone referred to the U.S. Senate as "that remarkable body, the most remarkable of all the inventions of modern politics, the Senate of the United States." With Brown, even the pretense of deliberation is over. He is pledging not to consider the merits of nominees in fulfilling his oath to give "advice and consent" on nominations. Joining Jaime West, he is announcing that he just does not like them, and so he will not speak with them.
如今的参议员似乎正在向选民提供纯粹、未经稀释的愤怒。在《愤怒与共和国》一书中，我讨论了制宪者如何设计我们的宪法，以防止民主沦为本杰明·拉什所说的“暴民统治”。而如今，它正沦为它本应抵抗的那种盲目激情的俘虏。
The senators now seem to be offering pure undiluted rage to voters. 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 becoming the captive of the very blind passions that it was designed to resist.
布朗的承诺对这座曾经庄严的机构而言是一个令人寒心的时刻。它的设立本是为了对抗暴民，成为一座能够抑制激情而非屈从于激情的堡垒。事实上，在1805年参议院的最后一次告别演讲中，亚伦·伯尔曾指出：“如果宪法注定要被煽动者或篡位者的亵渎之手毁灭——愿上帝阻止此事——那么它的垂死挣扎将在这片土地上被目睹。”
The Brown pledge is a chilling moment for this once august institution. It was designed to be a bulwark against the mob, an institution that would temper passions, not yield to them. Indeed, in his final farewell to the Senate in 1805, Aaron Burr remarked that "if the Constitution be destined ever to perish by the sacrilegious hand of the demagogue or the usurper, which God avert, its expiring agonies will be witnessed on this floor."