Supreme Court Justice Kagan reaffirms her commitment to implementing a binding code of ethics.
It appears to be a sensible approach, considering our own set of guidelines moving forward, according to a liberal justice, during a gathering at the New York University School of Law. This approach seems beneficial in fostering trust that we adhere strictly to our rules. Therefore, it seems beneficial for the court.
Kagan endorsed the thought of a binding ethics code at a judicial conference in California in July. She acknowledged her support for the court's recently unveiled code of conduct but expressed that its effectiveness could be improved by removing the enforcement responsibility from individual justices.
President Biden advocated for a binding ethics code towards the end of July, sparked by a string of ethics issues involving justices accepting, yet failing to disclose, private jet travels and lavish vacations from GOP donors. However, these ethical reforms have faced resistance from congressional Republicans, who perceive them as a reaction to the court's conservative judgment in prominent cases.
A Marquette Law School poll conducted in August revealed that 57% of Americans disapprove of the court, a slight increase from the 61% disapproval two years prior. The survey also indicated that nearly 60% believe justices' decisions are primarily driven by politics, whereas 43% feel they are guided primarily by the law.
Kagan dismissed a ProPublica report showcasing criticism from a religious legal group bureaucrat who deemed Kagan's advocacy for a binding code of ethics as "somewhat treasonous." Kagan portrayed the term "somewhat treasonous" as vague, stating that it is either treasonous or not, before dismissing further attention to the matter.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Biden's sole nominee to the Supreme Court, has also expressed support for a binding code of ethics.
"From my viewpoint, I do not have any issues with a binding code," shared Jackson, the most recent addition to the Supreme Court. "Is the Supreme Court any different? I haven't found a convincing argument to suggest otherwise."
Kagan suggested that this appeared to be a reasonable approach to ensure accountability for the court members.
"I believe that numerous judges across the nation would handle this responsibility in an impartial and serious manner," said Kagan.
Expresses concern over emergency docket usage
Kagan also touched upon her concern over the surge in high-profile emergency cases on the Supreme Court's emergency docket. Noting the rise in such cases this summer compared to previous years, Kagan labeled it as a "tough problem."
The Supreme Court's emergency docket, or the "shadow docket" as critics put it, is where the justices manage matters that require immediate resolution, as opposed to the months required for brief submissions, oral arguments, and formal opinions on the regular docket.
These cases typically address temporary issues related to an ongoing legal process, although their resolutions can have significant and immediate consequences.
"I believe we need to exercise caution while granting emergency petitions, recognizing that it is not our strongest suit," mentioned Kagan, adding that in certain instances, "it is not feasible to allow situations of great significance to linger for three years."
The ongoing discussion about a binding ethics code in the Supreme Court is heavily influenced by politics, as indicated by the poll showing that nearly 60% of Americans believe justices' decisions are primarily driven by politics. Kagan, a supporter of the binding code, expressed concern over the usage of the emergency docket, labeling it as a "tough problem" due to the surge in high-profile cases this summer.
