The recent push against free speech is underlied, so we’re told, by a desire to protect the legitimacy of our institutions against discord and disinformation propaganda. Unless, of course, the discord is sown by Regime journalists. Then, it is perfectly acceptable.
Watch as CBS’s Norah O’Donnell, after getting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to talk about her dissent in the presidential immunity case, frames a question on a potential Supreme Court code of ethics by first trashing the legitimacy of the Court, and then by attempting to bait Justice Jackson into attacking Justice Clarence Thomas over gifts and travel:
CBS SUNDAY MORNING
9/1/24
9:40 AM
NORAH O’DONNELL: One of the hardest issues the Supreme Court tackled this year involved Donald Trump. The question: could the former president face criminal charges for his efforts to undo his 2020 election defeat to Joe Biden? In July, the court ruled 6 to 3 along ideological lines that Trump was entitled to immunity for official acts as president. Jackson dissented.
You were concerned about broad immunity?
KETANJI BROWN-JACKSON: I was concerned about a system that appeared to provide immunity for one individual under one set of circumstances, when we have a criminal justice system that had ordinarily treated everyone the same.
O’DONNELL: Are you prepared that this election could end up before the Supreme Court?
JACKSON: As prepared as anyone can be. Let me ask you, are you prepared for all of the news cycles that you are getting as a result of this election?
O’DONNELL: No.
JACKSON: No, exactly. I mean, 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.
O’DONNELL: Today, fewer than half of Americans say they have a favorable view of the Supreme Court. Pick your reason. The partisan confirmation battles, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, or undisclosed trips and gifts given to justices, including Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
By one analysis, Justice Thomas has accepted $4 million in trips, travel and gifts over the past two decades. Is that inappropriate?
JACKSON: Oh, I’m not going to comment on other justices' interpretations of the rules or what they are doing.
O’DONNELL: What's your personal code of ethics?
JACKSON: Well- I follow the rules, whatever they are, with respect to ethical obligations. And it's important, in my view, to do so. It really boils down to impartiality. That's what the rules are about. People are entitled to know if you are accepting gifts as a judge so they can evaluate whether or not your opinions are impartial.
O’DONNELL: The president wants a binding code for the Supreme Court that would enforce gift disclosures and recusals. Do you see a problem with that?
JACKSON: So, you know, a binding code of ethics is pretty standard for judges. And so I guess the question is: is the Supreme Court any different? And I guess I have not seen a persuasive reason as to why the Court is different than the other courts.
O’DONNELL: Are you considering supporting an enforcement mechanism?
JACKSON: I am considering supporting it as a general matter. I am not going to get into commenting on particular policy proposals, but from my perspective, I don’t have any problem with an enforceable code.
The reasons O’Donnell cites for the Court’s loss of public approval are asinine. There have always been controversial opinions and there have always been “partisan confirmation battles”- lest anyone forget why “borking” is a verb. But none of these issues were a problem when the Court was more evenly split and on occasion tilted to the left. The Obamacare and gay marriage rulings come to mind here.
The real problem is that the left does not control the Court. And what the left does not control, it delegitimizes. I doubt O’Donnell would push stories questioning the legitimacy of a Supreme Court that upheld, for example, the radical “Women’s Health Protection Act” which codifies an unrestricted abortion regime. The Court is only a problem because of Dobbs, and Bruen, and the end of the Chevron deference.
The rest of the interview was syrup bordering on historical hagiography, with its emphasis on the “firstness” of Justice Jackson. But on the whole, the interview bears witness to the Regime Media’s complicity in the left’s attacks against our democratic institutions- including the United States Supreme Court.
