The Daily Populous Monday September 2nd, 2024 morning edition
Authored by nbcnews.com and submitted by nbcnews

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she is open to proposals to implement an "enforceable code" of ethics for justices and lamented the court's presidential immunity decision in an interview that aired Sunday.

"A binding code of ethics is pretty standard for judges, and so I guess the question is 'Is the Supreme Court any different?'" Jackson asked in an interview on "CBS News Sunday Morning" about her new memoir, adding, "I guess I have not seen a persuasive reason as to why the [Supreme] Court is different than the other courts."

The issue of ethics on the Supreme Court has entered the public sphere in recent years as stories have emerged about justices' not disclosing certain lavish gifts on their ethics disclosure forms.

For example, Justice Clarence Thomas accepted lavish gifts and trips from GOP megadonor Harlan Crow. None of them were officially disclosed before ProPublica's reporting about on the trips and Crow last year.

Asked directly about the trips, Jackson said she was "not going to comment on other justices' interpretations of the rules or what they're doing."

President Joe Biden proposed a slate of reforms this summer, including a call for Congress to make the Supreme Court subject to an enforceable code, including the same disclosure rules for gifts, financial dealings and political activities other federal judges face.

While the proposal included an enforceable ethics code for the court, Jackson declined to say whether she supported a specific proposal on the table.

"I am considering supporting it as a general matter. I'm not going to get into commenting on particular policy proposals, but from my perspective, I don't have any problem with an enforceable code," Jackson said.

She also spoke about a recent case in front of the Supreme Court regarding presidential immunity for official acts in office.

The court ruled in July that former President Donald Trump has immunity for some of his conduct as president in his federal election interference case but may not for other actions.

Jackson dissented in that case, writing that the decision “breaks new and dangerous ground.” She told CBS News on Sunday that she was "concerned about a system that appeared to provide immunity for one individual under one set of circumstances when we had a criminal justice system that had ordinarily treated everyone the same."

Asked whether she was prepared to potentially decide the outcome of the presidential election or settle any potential disputes related to it, Jackson laughed, saying she is "as prepared as anyone can be."

"I think there are legal issues that arise out of the political process, and so the Supreme Court has to be prepared to respond if that should be necessary," she added.

bison1969 on September 1st, 2024 at 17:11 UTC »

Anyone who holds a position of power and is not open to enforceable ethics codes shouldn't be in a position of power.

Heimerdingerdonger on September 1st, 2024 at 16:57 UTC »

Just sick of these lifetime appointees. Absolutely no accountability.

Let's move to a court where every 4 years, 2 of them "retire" and 2 new are appointed by the President.

cornybalogna on September 1st, 2024 at 16:56 UTC »

Great. It shouldn't matter if they are open to it. Checks and balances exist for a reason, and the fact the supreme court doesn't have any of its own is criminal. How can there be ANY trust in the supreme court if they are above the law and available for purchase?