U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said during a "CBS Sunday Morning" interview that she supports a binding code of ethics for the nation's highest court.
“From my perspective, I don’t have any problem with an enforceable code,” Jackson said while plugging her new memoir.
“A binding code of ethics is pretty standard for judges. And so I guess the question is, ‘Is the Supreme Court any different?’” Jackson said. “And I guess I have not seen a persuasive reason as to why the court is different than the other courts.”
She did qualify her support as being "general," rather than supporting any specific legislation at this point.
The court has come under criticism in recent months for not having its own binding code of ethics after stories broke of several justices not disclosing gifts they received from wealthy friends, mainly rides on private jets and luxury vacations.
It was first reported that Justice Clarence Thomas did so, but it was later revealed that he was told he didn't have to disclose the gifts from Harlan Crow, a wealthy businessman and longtime personal friend.
There were no cases that ever came before the court involving Crow, but the left screamed about it for months anyway.
The court adopted its own code of ethics last year, but it was non-binding.
Jackson refused to discuss Thomas during the interview.
According to reports, most of the current justices accepted some kind of gifts, and many former justices also did.
Jackson is the newest member of the court, appointed by President Joe Biden.
She may have avoided accepting gifts because of the controversy surrounding them or just may not have disclosed any gifts yet if she did receive any.
Gabe Roth of Fix the Courts said about justices accepting gifts:
Supreme Court justices should not be accepting gifts, let alone the hundreds of freebies worth millions of dollars they’ve received over the years. Public servants who make four times the median local salary, and who can make millions writing books on any topic they like, can afford to pay for their own vacations, vehicles, hunting excursions and club memberships — to say nothing of the influence the gift-givers are buying with their ‘generosity.’ The ethics crisis at the Court won’t begin to abate until justices adopt stricter gift acceptance rules.
“It really boils down to impartality,” Jackson told CBS. “That’s what the rules are about. People are entitled to know if you’re accepting gifts as a judge, so that they can evaluate whether or not your opinions are impartial.”
