She highlighted a difference in views on how the Constitution frames separation of powers and the extent to which the executive branch leader should be treated differently than others in our system when it comes to alleged criminal activity. Jackson's strong view, shaped by her experience as a public defender and on the Sentencing Commission, was that criminal justice system could accommodate crime allegations of wrongdoing by the executive without forming an immunity, which she saw as taking the executive outside of the ordinary process.
Jackson believes the Supreme Court's ethics code, modeled on the lower court's ethics code, should be enforceable. While it currently lacks an enforcement mechanism, she hasn't seen a good reason why it shouldn't be enforceable, as lower court judges abide by enforceable ethics codes.
Jackson considers the decline in public trust a significant concern, as public belief in the court and its rulings is crucial for upholding the rule of law. She distinguishes between trust waning due to unpopular decisions and concerns about partiality, emphasizing the importance of addressing these issues seriously.
Jackson describes the Supreme Court as having a very collegial culture, despite differences in legal philosophies. Justices maintain personal bonds and engage in social activities together, adhering to a rule of not discussing legal matters during lunch, which she sees as demonstrating the ability to set aside sharp arguments and disagreements.
Jackson was initially surprised and floored by the call, as she had expected the announcement to be made earlier in the month. Her family was overjoyed, with her husband and others expressing a sense of destiny about her nomination.
Jackson firmly believes that the provisions of the Constitution cannot lawfully be set aside. She emphasizes the Constitutional Oath taken by judges and justices to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Since the founding of the nation, just 116 people have served as Supreme Court Justices; the 116th is Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by President Biden in 2022. Jackson joined a Court with six conservative Justices setting a new era of jurisprudence. She took her seat just days after the Dobbs decision, when Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion overturned Roe v. Wade. She wrote a blistering dissent to the Harvard decision, which ended affirmative action in college admissions, in which she accused the majority of a “let-them-eat-cake obliviousness” to the reality of race in America. She also dissented in the landmark Presidential-immunity case. Immunity might “incentivize an office holder to push the envelope, with respect to the exercise of their authority,” she tells David Remnick. “It was certainly a concern, and one that I did not perceive the Constitution to permit.” They also discussed the widely reported ethical questions surrounding the Court, and whether the ethical code it adopted ought to have some method of enforcement. But Jackson stressed that whatever the public perception, the nine Justices maintain old traditions of collegiality (no legal talk at lunch, period), and that she sometimes writes majority opinions as well as vigorous dissents. Jackson’s recent memoir is titled “Lovely One,” about her family, youth, and how she got to the highest position in American law.