My new column is up on The Hill. Here is the gist:
What Ketanji Brown Jackson can teach Clarence Thomas about judicial ethics
Jackson eschewed “contemporary labels” for her philosophy, while demonstrating in her testimony that her approach to judging rests on a bedrock of impartiality, candor and respect for the law, notably including the law of recusal.
She thus stands in sharp contrast to Justice Clarence Thomas, who, as we have learned, has persistently disregarded his recusal obligations. The anti-confirmation Republican senators would do well to recognize that no judicial philosophy – including Thomas’s hard-core, conservative-friendly originalism – is more important than integrity.
Cruz was referring to Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College. Cruz’s question about the case was straightforward: “You’re on the Board of Overseers of Harvard. If you’re confirmed, do you intend to recuse from this lawsuit?”
There was enough room for Jackson to duck the question. The Board of Overseers provides “counsel to the university’s leadership” but otherwise appears to have no actual authority over Harvard’s affirmative action program, and Jackson’s term ends next May, long before the case will be heard or decided by the Supreme Court. Moreover, recusal is a judicial act, so she might have declined to predict how she would rule until she has access to all the facts of the lawsuit. That is how Justice Amy Coney Barrett handled a similar question at her own confirmation hearing.
Instead, Jackson gave a plain answer.
“That is my plan, senator,” she said, without hesitation.
There will be many important challenges and responsibilities facing soon-to-be Justice Jackson on the Supreme Court. One of her first assignments ought to be teaching Justice Thomas a few things about judicial ethics.
You can read the entire essay here.