Justice Jackson Shares Her Concerns about Trump Immunity Ruling

In the same week that Jack Smith refiles his Trump Indictment, Justice Jackson talks about the SCOTUS decision that made refiling necessary.

Justice Jackson's memoir, Lovely One, hits bookstores next week. To promote the book (for which she reportedly received a nearly $900,000 advance), Justice Jackson sat down for an interview with Norah O'Donnell of CBS News.

Jackson, in an interview with "CBS Evening News" anchor and managing editor Norah O'Donnell, suggested the ruling gives Trump special treatment compared to anyone else in the criminal justice system.

"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," she said. . . .

Interestingly enough, this interview dropped the same week that Special Counsel Jack Smith refiled his indictment against Donald Trump for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

Justice Jackson also addressed the prospect of more election litigation.

Asked whether she was prepared for cases relating to the upcoming election to end up before the Supreme Court, Jackson replied that 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 said.

Based on the short clips that have been released, and CBS News' reporting, it appears that Justice Jackson is being fairly circumspect in what she says about the Court's work, and not saying all that much that cannot be gleaned from her opinions. If so, that is probably a good thing (and much better than what we sometimes saw from the late Justice Ginsburg).

CBS will air the full interview will air this weekend.

Comments

[Bubba Jones]

These book deals are in no way a money laundering enterprise for politicians.

[loki13]

Ugh. Look, I want to agree with your premise, but you can't even state it correctly.

Two things-
1. Judges aren't politicians. I know that we keep blurring the line, but they aren't.

2. Money laundering means something. This isn't money laundering.

Now, with that out of the way....

We should all be concerned about judicial ethics. There are a lot of issues going on, and ethical conduct in the judiciary isn't (or shouldn't be) a partisan issue.

The ethical rules allow judges to receive money for books. However, it is troubling that as soon as someone gets the SCOTUS nod, they get a massive book deal (see also, Gorsuch, Barrett, Jackson).

On the one hand, there are times when a Justice writes a book that I want to read. Scalia and Garner on statutory interpretation, for example. But I am not sure how to balance the idea that Justices should be allowed to write books (and be paid for that) with the more innovation of massive deals that seem to be paid simply because of their status.

TLDR; the book deals are not exactly the biggest ethical issue right now, but that doesn't mean it's not an issue. Judicial ethics matter, and we need to start treating it seriously.

[David Nieporent]

But I am not sure how to balance the idea that Justices should be allowed to write books (and be paid for that) with the more innovation of massive deals that seem to be paid simply because of their status.

Well — and I know I'm not the first to say it — we can forbid them from getting meaningful advances. If one writes a book and it's ultimately worth $900,000 in royalties, that's fine. Obviously there could still be concerns though mass book purchases or whatever, but generally, it's fine. But to shovel money at them that they might not ever earn seems ethically questionable.

[loki13]

Sounds good to me!

It would balance the competing issues. I think it's great for Justices to write books. But I don't think these advances ... pass the smell test.

And yes, if we see that outside groups (or individuals named, um, Narlan Snow) are buying tons o' books, then we can look at that separately. But better to get rid of the problem we have, than to worry too much about the problems that might arise.

[SMP0328]

CBS will air the full interview will air this weekend.

FIFY.

[FivebySixThree]

So who is designated to buy all the books?

[Swede425]

I'm more concerned with the fact that she doesn't deem herself qualified to define what a woman is.
Something as difficult as that should be left up to biologists.

[MollyGodiva]

"Woman" is not a biological term (sex), it is a social construct (gender). Sex and gender are not the same thing. Sex is defined by biology and anatomy, and gender is defined by social norms and expectations.

[Michael P]

So you're happy if we just reserve "female's rooms" restrooms?

[NvEric]

Here the Marxist tries to redefine a word.

[Beezard]

Libertarians for Critical Constructivism!

[Swede425]

Ok, so everybody but Molly understands what a woman is.
Wait, I take that back.
Women's sports is an example of what happens when people pretend they don't know what a woman is.

[gnome]

Sure. Now do female boxers physically configured female but something to do with chromosomes. I've seen the one thing, but I've never seen a chromosome so I wouldn't know.

Save us all some trouble here and tell us what a woman is.

[great Unknown]

No comments about absolute immunity for judges and prosecutors?

[Kords]

That is civil immunity, not criminal immunity. Not at all the same thing.

[Michael Ejercito]

The Supreme Court even noted that.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Lovely One link doesn’t work.

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/737094/lovely-one-by-ketanji-brown-jackson/

[Doug Heffernan]

Why is being fairly circumspect about the court's work a good thing? Does the court not work for the people? Are the people better off with less information about the court's internal workings? Should the court even have internal workings?

Perhaps an air of respectability is achieved by keeping the sausage making of the court's work secret. The public should just evaluate the court based on its final product, the written opinions. But some negotiated opinion can't tell the story of the entire process, which if revealed, might help with understanding. VH1's Behind the Music often gave more understanding of some artist's music than just the music itself.

On the other hand, Jackson realizes the limits of her power. She's part of a very weak minority on the court. And airing the court's dirty laundry might just be tilting at windmills, and be upsetting to the powerful members of the court's super majority. Easier just to collect the $900k and provide some weak anecdotes, appear humble, and be applauded for doing so by the likes of Adler.

[Real American]

Justice Jackson may be unaware of this, but at the time of the alleged conduct, Trump was actually President of the United States, which historically confers certain privileges and immunities. That's the main reason he's got some "special treatment compared to anyone else in the criminal justice system."

[rloquitur]

She's an idiot.

[David Nieporent]

Trump was actually President of the United States, which historically confers certain privileges and immunities.

Not until 2024, when the Supreme Court invented that without any grounding in text, history, or precedent.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Name one president (other than Trump) that has been prosecuted for anything done while in office.

The immunity issue was at most an unresolved question.

[David Nieporent]

Name one president (other than Trump) that has done anything like that while in office. I can: Richard Nixon. And he wasn't prosecuted only because he was pardoned. A pardon which likely cost Ford re-election. A pardon which the Supreme Court just ruled was utterly unnecessary because, after all, Nixon was already immune.

[Michael P]

LBJ sicced the FBI on his personal domestic "enemies". FDR had his court-packing scheme, in addition to ordering citizens into concentration camps and protecting lynching. Obama decided he could order Americans to be assassinated in the absence of any imminent threat or criminal conviction.

[Brett Bellmore]

And basically all of them in living memory took home classified documents.

[rloquitur]

How dumb can you be? First of all, if Executive actions can be reviewed after the fact by state prosecutors like Bragg, who campaigned on getting Trump, then the Executive Power shall be vested in President (i.e., all the Executive Power) then all the executive power isn't so vested. There, text.

[windycityattorney]

Based on the Sup Ct’s ruling, a first term president running for re-election can ignore all campaign finance laws etc… so long as he gets all his advice on how to skirt the laws or ignore them from his attorney general and white house counsels.

Seems legit.

[David Nieporent]

Your statement is neither correct nor relevant, since Alvin Bragg did not review "executive actions." Neither paying off Stormy Daniels nor structuring the payments and records to hide that payoff is an "executive action." It's a private action, taken by Trump in his capacity as a candidate, so-called businessman, and bad husband. Not one thing he was convicted of doing in NY utilized any presidential power. Anyone — president (or any officeholder) or not — could have engaged in it.

[rloquitur]

I apologize for not being entirely clear. Obviously Trump doesn't have immunity for pre--Presidential actions. What I meant was that prosecutors like Bragg (i.e., shameless partisan hacks) can review executive actions after the fact and punish them. I don't think that I said that this particular prosecution (other than the evidentiary issues) was an impingement on the executive function. I suspect you knew that, and just wanted to deflect.

[rloquitur]

It's hard to know who is dumber, the "wise [sic] Latina" or Justice Jackson. It would be nice, maybe, if Justice Jackson looked a little at some of the oddities in Jack Smith's indictment. Since when is it illegal to lobby legislatures to do legislative acts, whether of not such acts are ultimately deemed illegal. So let's say Trump argued that the government-assisted suppression of the Hunter laptop story at the behest of the Biden campaign rendered the election unfair and that Congress could vote to certify Trump's electors. How can this possibly be illegal?

[ReaderY]

Don Corleone says the Family would be better off if so-and-so weren’t around. The body is found a few days later. But surely nobody would be so dumb as to suggest that Don Corleone did anything wrong just by expressing a personal opinion. Don’t they understand something as simple as free speech?

[rloquitur]

Have you always been this obtuse, or did you have to work at it? Your hypo has nothing to do with a legislator qua legislator's act. Perhaps next time, deal with the question. Think you can do that, genius?

[Voize]

Other lobbyists should pay attention, they've been doing it wrong. They too should storm the Capitol and sacrifice an Ashli or two to really get their point across.

[rloquitur]

The truly scary thing about the indictment is that it is so obviously BS and that people actually take it seriously as a legal oeuvre.

First of all, what is the meaning of describing the VP's role as ceremonial? He was President of the Senate. He therefore has a constitutional role and can act in that manner as he sees fit. Thus, Trump could lobby him to do Trump's bidding.

[JesusHadBlondeHairBlueEyes]

Well, you see, the Left's theory is that everybody knows that the VP role is ceremonial, EXCEPT Trump, and therefore when Trump was lobbying him, he was no longer acting as the President, but since the VP is ceremonial, what Trump did was insurrection which means all his conversations with his lawyers aren't protected, and thus Trump is guilty no matter what.

[windycityattorney]

You normally this stupid? The vice president's role in the counting of electoral votes is ceremonial. He opens the ballots and reads them. He announces the results at the end.

Individual members can object to a state's electoral slate and there is a process to deal with that but again, its perfunctory.

Its also possible that CANDIDATE TRUMP could be acting in the capacity as a candidate for re-election vs acting as head of the executive branch. He is in both roles simultaneously and some acts can be executive functions and some can be candidate functions. Whining and bitching about fraud can be done in both roles. Once all the legal channels to challenge the results failed; it became less and less official functions vs the delusions of a narcissist who can't believe he could have lost.

[NvEric]

No, it's not the Vice President, but rather, in fact, 'The President of the Senate shall, ... , open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; ...'

Read the Constitution !

[Beldar]

Prof. Adler, has Justice Jackson just created for herself the kind of problem that forced Justice Scalia to recuse himself in the Elk Grove Unif. School Dist. v. Newdow case? We know from his later opinion in a case in which he refused to recuse himself, Cheney v. United States Dist. Ct., that his recusal from Newdow was based upon what he called “established principles and practices,” as applied to his own public comments about the merits, or lack thereof, of the Newdow case while pending in the Ninth Circuit. Canon 6(A)(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, although not specifically binding upon SCOTUS Justices, nevertheless reflects the established principle against such judicial comments, as carried forward into that Code:

(6) A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. A judge should require similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge’s direction and control. The prohibition on public comment on the merits does not extend to public statements made in the course of the judge’s official duties, to explanations of court procedures, or to scholarly presentations made for purposes of legal education.

The government’s prosecution against Trump is of course still pending, and an appeal and then cert petition arising from any final judgment of conviction, and probably further interlocutory appeals even before then, are “impending.”

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Why won't you sayi it ? She is stupid and so poorly-spoken. Better than Ginsburg --- what does that mean?
I prefer one pound of horseshit in my house rathrn than two. Wow. ahter thm