Welcome to today's custom deep dive. We are we're
so glad you're here with us. Yeah. Thrilled to
be diving into this one. Because we all know
the fundamental rules of the U .S. government.
Right. You know, the text of the Constitution,
the advice and consent clause, the separation
of power. Right. The stuff you learn in civics
class. Exactly. You've likely followed enough
political history to know how the formal procedures
are supposed to work. But today. Based on the
stack of sources you've provided us, we are looking
at something entirely different. We really are.
We're opening up the shadow rule book. We're
looking at a completely unwritten, totally unofficial
set of customs that secretly runs the show. It
dictates who gets into federal power. And I mean,
it can bring the president of the United States
to an absolute standstill. It's wild. The central
focus of our source material today is a longstanding
constitutional convention. It's known as senatorial
courtesy. Right. And our mission here is to analyze
exactly how this unwritten rule functions as
a hidden engine of political patronage. And how
it started. Yes. How a moment of personal spite
all the way back during the George Washington
administration accidentally created it. Plus,
we'll look at the high stakes political chess
games it forces at the highest levels of government.
Basically, we're looking at how informal traditions
and personal leverage just routinely override
the formal written procedures of the republic.
That is exactly what we're looking at. OK, let's
unpack this. Let's look at the actual mechanism
of senatorial courtesy. Let's do it. The defining
characteristic here is that U .S. senators have
an ingrained tendency to support a Senate colleague
who opposes the appointment of a federal office
nominee from that senator's home state. Right.
So say the president nominates someone for a
federal post in a specific state. The home state
senator objects. And the rest of the Senate effectively
forms a blockade. They just vote the nomination
down at a pure deference to their colleague.
Which seems crazy, right? The sources present
this fascinating dual motivation for why a legislative
body would willingly handcuff the executive branch
like this. Yeah, there's the public reason and
the private reason. Exactly. The public -facing
rationale is all rooted in the concept of collegiality
and local expertise. I mean, the Senate operates
as an exclusive club. Very exclusive. The operating
assumption is that a home state senator possesses
the most accurate firsthand knowledge of a nominee's
character. Their reputation in the community,
their actual qualifications. Right. Because a
president sitting in Washington, D .C., might
see a pristine resume. But the local senator
theoretically knows if the nominee is actually
respected back home or, you know, if they have
buried skeletons. That is the noble explanation.
We are deferring to local knowledge to ensure
quality candidates. Sure. That's what they say.
But the source material heavily emphasizes the
unofficial, highly practical reason this custom
survives. It is an absolute powerhouse of political
patronage. Oh, massively. By honoring this courtesy,
senators collectively ensure that they each hold
the keys to federal power in their own respective
backyards. It essentially transforms a federal
appointment into a local political bargaining
chip. And that patronage system relies on a very
specific procedural sequence. Senatorial courtesy
is at its absolute strongest when the president
and the home state senator belong to the same
political party. Because they're supposed to
be on the same team? Exactly. Because of this
unwritten rule, the president is functionally
required to consult the senator before ever submitting
a formal nomination for a federal posting tied
to that state. And if they don't? If a president
were to bypass that consultation, they risk the
senator raising a public objection on the Senate
floor. The resulting rejection wouldn't just
be a defeat. It would be a highly public, embarrassing
rebuke delivered by the president's own political
party. The threat of that embarrassment forces
the president to the negotiating table. The consultation
phase becomes the actual decision making arena.
Yes. The president might actively solicit the
senator for recommendations, essentially asking
the senator to handpick the nominee. And that
allows the senator to reward loyal political
supporters, campaign donors, local allies, you
name it. They get prestigious federal jobs. Or
if the president already has a candidate in mind,
they have to quietly seek the senator's advance
approval. It's a silent veto. The senator gets
to play kingmaker behind closed doors before
the public even knows there's a vacancy. What's
fascinating here is a brilliant quote from the
sources by former United States Attorney General
Robert F. Kennedy. Oh, I love this quote. He
observed this entire dynamic and stated, basically,
it's senatorial appointment with the advice and
consent of the president. That is a staggering
observation. Isn't it? It completely inverts
the written text of the United States Constitution.
The formal document explicitly grants the power
of nomination to the president, with the Senate
acting as a check through their advice and consent.
The president acts, the Senate reviews. That's
the written rule. Right. But Kennedy's point
is that the unwritten custom has entirely flipped
that dynamic for local federal postings. In reality,
the senator is often the one generating the nomination
through this patronage system. And the president
is the one offering the advice and consent, just
rubber stamping the choice to maintain party
harmony and avoid a floor fight. Exactly. It
is a profound structural shift in the separation
of powers. And you will not find a single word
of it authorized in the Constitution. The entire
federal appointment process for district judges
or U .S. attorneys is essentially outsourced
to the legislative branch. But wait, let's explore
the boundaries of this. We're talking about the
dynamic when the president and the senator are
on the same team. Right. The same party. What
is the incentive structure if they are from opposing
political parties? If the president is from party
A and the home state senator is from party B,
why would the president bother consulting them
at all? Doesn't the majority party just steamroll
the opposition and install whoever they want?
You'd think so. But the system has actually evolved
a specific mechanism to handle that exact scenario.
It prevents a complete shutout of the opposition.
OK. The sources detail the blue slip policy maintained
by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The blue slip.
Yes. This is a tangible procedure, literally
utilizing a blue piece of paper that guarantees
even opposition senators receive a consultative
role regarding major federal appointments in
their state. We're talking about federal district
and appellate court judges, U .S. attorneys,
federal marshals? Exactly. So the blue slip acts
as a formal acknowledgement of the unwritten
rule. Even if you're an opposition senator, the
Judiciary Committee won't just move forward with
a nominee for your state without sending you
this blue slip to solicit your opinion. It forces
the administration to at least acknowledge the
local representative. Right. The power of that
blue slip can fluctuate depending on the era
and who chairs the committee. But its core function
is to mandate a degree of local buy -in. It prevents
the federal government from airdropping complete
outsiders or highly polarizing figures into a
state's judicial system without engaging the
elected representatives of that jurisdiction.
And when you think about why this matters on
a systemic level to you, listening to this, it
reveals something fundamental about how the American
federalist system operates in practice rather
than in theory. Yes, it's a huge distinction.
Federal judges, U .S. attorneys, federal marshals,
these are individuals who wield massive unilateral
power over the lives of citizens within a specific
geographic area. They enforce the law locally.
Right. And the blue slip policy, born from the
broader... of senatorial courtesy forces a compromise.
It creates a structural buffer that keeps regional
voices relevant. It ensures that the national
executive branch cannot operate as a pure top
-down dictatorship when staffing the local enforcement
arms of the federal government. It embeds friction
into the system by design. It requires negotiation
where the Constitution technically requires none.
Here's where it gets really interesting. We're
looking at this massive entrenched system of
patronage, silent vetoes and blue slips. But
how did the Senate actually seize this power?
Oh, this is the best part. The origin story in
the source material takes us all the way back
to the presidency of George Washington. The historical
context is vital here. In 1789, the United States
federal government is in its absolute infancy.
The ink on the Constitution is barely dry. Everything
is brand new. Right. The executive branch has
to be built from scratch, requiring a massive
wave of initial appointments. Up until the incident
we are about to discuss, the Senate had been
entirely compliant. They had given prompt universal
consent to every single one of Washington's presidential
nominations. Washington was a living legend,
the indispensable man. The Senate was not inclined
to challenge his judgment. Right. Nobody wants
to be the first person in history to tell George
Washington he is wrong. Nobody. But then comes
the nomination for the port of Savannah, Georgia.
Washington nominates a man named Benjamin Fishburne
to the post of naval officer for the port. It's
a mid -level bureaucratic role. It shouldn't
have caused a ripple. Yet when the Senate takes
up Fishburne's nomination, the two senators from
Georgia immediately object. Senator James Gunn
takes the floor and explicitly speaks against
the nomination of Fishburne for this Georgia
based federal office. And the rationale for the
objection is what makes this so incredible. Fishburne
wasn't incompetent. He wasn't a criminal. The
source notes that Senator Gunn's opposition was
likely driven by nothing more than personal animosity
toward the nominee. It was a local grudge. Gunn
just did not like Benjamin Fishburne. But isn't
that a massive flaw in the new system? How did
the framers of the Constitution, many of whom
were sitting in that very government, allow a
single senator's personal spite to override the
president's constitutional authority right out
of the gate? If we connect this to the bigger
picture. That is the exact moment the shadow
rulebook was written. The Senate was faced with
a choice. Do we back the universally revered
President Washington, or do we establish a precedent
that protects our own territorial power? And
they chose the latter. They did. The Senate deferred
to Senator Gunn and rejected the nomination of
Benjamin Fishburne. They effectively decided
in the first days of the republic that they would
form a united front to protect each other's local
authority over federal appointments. It's astounding.
It wasn't a high minded philosophical debate
about the nature of executive power. It was a
fleeting moment of personal spite over a naval
officer in Savannah. Yeah. And it accidentally
established a constitutional convention that
has dictated the balance of power for centuries.
The Senate realized that if they backed Gunn
today, Gunn would have to back them tomorrow
when it came to appointments in their own states.
They built the engine of political patronage
right there on the floor. It is the perfect illustration
of how institutional power solidifies. An unwritten
rule is born the moment a group realizes a collective
behavior benefits their individual leverage.
Absolutely. But of course, an unwritten rule
is only as strong as the Senate's willingness
to enforce it. And testing the absolute limits
of that enforcement brings us to the highest
stakes possible in the American system. The Supreme
Court of the United States. Right. We've established
that this courtesy applies to district judges
and local federal marshals. But does a home state
senator have the power to veto a nominee to the
highest court in the land? The baseline rule
established in the text is that senatorial courtesy
generally does not apply to Supreme Court appointments.
OK, that makes sense. The jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court is national, not local, and the
stakes are far too high to allow a single senator
to hold a seat hostage. However that general
rule has a legendary exception. Oh there's always
an exception. There are instances where senators
have attempted to stretch this custom to the
absolute breaking point. It leads to some of
the most intense political maneuvering in American
history. The source material highlights an absolute
brawl during the second administration of President
Grover Cleveland in 1894. Right. The conflict
begins when Associate Justice Samuel Blashford
dies, creating a sudden vacancy on the Supreme
Court. President Cleveland moves to fill the
seat, but he immediately runs into fierce, unyielding
opposition from Senator David B. Hill of New
York. Now, Cleveland doesn't just fold. He tries
to force his way through. The source details
a double rejection that is almost hard to fathom
today. It really is. Cleveland makes his first
move, nominating William B. Hornblower. Senator
Hill leverages his influence, and the Senate
rejects the nominee. Denied. So Cleveland regroups,
refuses to consult Hill, and nominates a second
man, Wheeler Hazard Peckham. And again, Senator
Hill rallies the chamber, and the Senate blocks
the nomination. The president of the United States
is publicly denied twice for a Supreme Court
vacancy by a single senator. How did Senator
Hill pull that off? The leverage Hill utilized
was a masterful combination of raw political
machinery and unwritten tradition. First, we
have to look at the motive. Hill didn't block
Hornblower and Peckham over deep ideological
devise regarding constitutional law. No. He blocked
them because both men had previously opposed
his political machine in New York. Hill was protecting
his political turf from enemies. A local political
vendetta hijacking the composition of the Supreme
Court. Exactly. But Hill couldn't have convinced
the entire Senate to reject Supreme Court nominees
based on a personal vendetta alone. He needed
an institutional excuse, a tradition the Senate
felt compelled to honor. Right. They need cover.
The source points out that the Senate afforded
Hill this massive deference because the vacant
seat, the one previously held by Justice Blatchford,
had a unique history. All the way back to the
administration of Thomas Jefferson, that specific
bench seat had been held by appointees from New
York. It was unofficially designated as the New
York seat. Precisely the kind of clubhouse tradition
the Senate loves to protect. Because it was the
New York seat, the Senate felt that the unwritten
rule of senatorial courtesy did apply. Granting
the New York senator the right to veto nominees,
he found objectionable. So Cleveland is trapped
in a corner. He's facing a hostile senator who
is successfully using an unwritten rule backed
by an ancient tradition about a specific chair
on the bench to embarrass the administration
and protect his local political machine. He's
stuck. He can't beat Senator Hill with formal
constitutional authority because the Senate won't
give him the votes. So Cleveland does something
incredibly shrewd. He fights fire with fire.
He decides to beat an unwritten rule with another
unwritten rule. Cleveland realizes that a frontal
assault on senatorial courtesy is failing. So
for his third attempt to fill the vacancy, he
pivots entirely. He nominates a man named Edward
Douglas White. Who is that the masterstroke?
Who is Edward Douglas White? White was not an
outsider. He was an incumbent United States senator
representing Louisiana. It's brilliant. By nominating
a sitting senator, Cleveland forces the Senate
into a massive conflict of interest between their
own shadow rules. Exactly. The sources outline
a completely separate custom that existed alongside
senatorial courtesy. It's the tradition of all
but automatic approval of senatorial colleagues.
They take care of their own. Always. When a president
nominated a current or former member of the U
.S. Senate to the Supreme Court, the chamber
would abandon its usual rigorous vetting process.
They wouldn't even refer the nomination to a
committee for review. Out of profound professional
courtesy to one of their own club members, they
would move directly to a swift and near -unanimous
confirmation. Cleveland essentially traps Senator
Hill. He puts White's name up and dares Hill
to object. Because if Hill objects, he isn't
just fighting the president anymore. He is violating
the sacred, unwritten rule of automatic approval
for a fellow senator. Cleveland weaponizes the
Senate's own elite club mentality against the
obstructionist. And the strategy worked flawlessly.
Senator Hill's opposition evaporated in the face
of this countercustom. The Senate quickly confirmed
Edward Douglas White, and President Cleveland
finally succeeded in filling the Supreme Court
vacancy by completely sidestepping the trap that
had been laid for him. So what does this all
mean? When we step back and look at the entire
landscape we've covered, the daily grind of patronage
for local federal marshals, the strategic use
of blue slips by opposition parties. The petty
grudge of Senator James Gunn in 1789. Right.
All the way up to Grover Cleveland's brilliant
use of conflicting customs to force a Supreme
Court confirmation. How should you, the listener,
synthesize all of this? The overarching takeaway
from these sources is that. Senatorial courtesy
is the ultimate case study in how the actual
mechanics of a government function in reality
rather than in theory. The written text of the
law, the Constitution, provides the structural
skeleton. But the muscles and sinews that actually
make the political body move are these informal
traditions, the sense of intense collegiality
and the behind -the -scenes leverage. The power
to appoint federal officials isn't just a clinical
constitutional duty. It is a highly fluid, fiercely
contested currency that is traded on the floor
of the Senate every single day. Yeah. This raises
an important question. It really does. Thank
you for joining us on this deep dive into the
shadow rulebook of the United States Senate.
We have traced how a simple expectation of politeness
and collegiality in the 18th century calcified
into a hard -nosed structural veto that dictates
the composition of the federal judiciary to this
very day. Truly wild. As you go forward and watch
the news, we want to leave you with a final lingering
thought to explore on your own. We've just spent
our time dissecting one massive, highly influential,
unwritten rule. But it makes you wonder how many
other completely unofficial gentleman's agreements,
silent vetoes, and secret handshake traditions
are quietly steering the actions of our highest
institutions right now, completely absent from
the actual written laws of the land. Keep your
eyes open, look past the parchment, and keep
asking questions. Until next time.