Key Takeaways
- Norms of civility and procedural decorum provide societal benefits even to those who openly reject them, by creating a predictable environment that protects minority interests and stabilizes governance.
- The Senate’s advice‑and‑consent role imposes limits on presidential deference; presidents are not automatically entitled to unchecked authority over Cabinet nominations.
- Opposition to confirming Todd Blanche as Attorney General is grounded in the principle that the Senate must exercise independent judgment, especially when a nominee’s background or the president’s conduct raises concerns about respect for institutional norms.
- The current president’s demonstrable contempt for unwritten rules of civility diminishes the customary deference owed to his selections, strengthening the case for heightened senatorial scrutiny.
- A robust confirmation process that weighs both the nominee’s qualifications and the broader normative climate serves to preserve the integrity of the Department of Justice and the rule of law.
The question “What benefit of norms is owed to someone who disdains norms?” invites a reflection on the paradoxical value that social and political conventions hold even for their critics. Norms—such as the expectation of courteous discourse, adherence to procedural fairness, and respect for institutional independence—are not merely ornamental; they function as the lubricant that allows disparate interests to coexist without constant conflict. Even a politician who openly flouts these conventions benefits from the stability they provide: predictable rules reduce the risk of sudden, destabilizing shifts, protect minority voices from majoritarian excess, and create a baseline of trust that enables negotiation and compromise. In other words, the very architecture of a liberal democratic system relies on a shared understanding that certain boundaries will not be crossed, and this understanding shields all participants—including norm‑rejecters—from the chaos that would erupt if every actor operated purely on personal whim.
Applying this lens to the confirmation of Todd Blanche as Attorney General reveals why many senators argue that the president’s nomination should not receive automatic deference. The Constitution grants the president the power to nominate senior officials, but it simultaneously entrusts the Senate with the responsibility to advise and consent. This duality was designed precisely to prevent the executive from filling key positions with loyalists who might undermine the impartial execution of the law. The Senate’s role is therefore not a perfunctory rubber‑stamp; it is a deliberative check that evaluates nominees on merit, integrity, and their commitment to upholding the Constitution and the norms that sustain it.
Presidential deference in the nomination process is real but limited. Historical practice shows that senators typically accord the president some latitude, recognizing the electoral mandate and the need for a functioning executive branch. Yet this deference is never absolute; it is contingent upon the president’s respect for the institutional framework that makes the advice‑and‑consent mechanism meaningful. When a president repeatedly disparages the unwritten rules of civility—such as refusing to concede defeat, attacking the judiciary, or undermining the independence of law‑enforcement agencies—the justification for granting him the benefit of the doubt erodes. In such circumstances, the Senate is justified, even obligated, to apply a stricter standard of review, ensuring that the nominee will not further erode the very norms that facilitate effective governance.
Today’s president has exhibited a pattern of dismissing the informal conventions that lubricate political discourse: frequent personal attacks on opponents, disregard for established etiquette in press briefings, and a tendency to question the legitimacy of electoral outcomes. These behaviors signal a broader disregard for the civility that underpins trust between branches of government and between the government and the populace. Consequently, the customary deference afforded to his nominations is markedly reduced. The Senate’s advice‑and‑consent duty regains its full weight, compelling senators to scrutinize Blanche’s record, his views on prosecutorial independence, and his willingness to uphold the Department of Justice’s tradition of nonpartisan enforcement.
Evaluating Blanche himself, critics point to concerns that his prior professional experiences may align him too closely with an executive agenda that seeks to politicize justice rather than insulate it from partisan influence. If confirmed, there is a risk that the Attorney General’s office could become an instrument for advancing the president’s policy preferences at the expense of impartial law‑enforcement—a development that would directly contravene the norms that protect civil rights, ensure fair trials, and maintain public confidence in the legal system. The Senate, therefore, must weigh not only Blanche’s individual qualifications but also the broader implications of placing someone who may be sympathetic to an administration that openly flouts civility norms into a position tasked with safeguarding those very norms.
In sum, the benefit of norms extends even to those who profess to disdain them: norms create a predictable, stable environment that shields all actors from the turmoil of unchecked power. The Senate’s advice‑and‑consent function exists to ensure that the executive does not exploit that stability to erode the very foundations of democratic governance. Given the current president’s evident contempt for unwritten rules of civility, the customary deference to his nominations is appropriately curtailed. A thorough, principled evaluation of Todd Blanche’s suitability—grounded in a commitment to preserving the norms that enable fair and effective governance—is not merely advisable; it is essential to the health of the Republic.