Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Says Harris Gives People ‘Hope’

Supreme Court justices are supposed to be seen and not heard, at least most of the time.

They obviously do public appearances and are interviewed, but they are supposed to stick to the law.

During a recent appearance on “The View,” Justice Jackson, Biden’s appointee, colored outside those lines.

Can She Say That?

Justices are supposed to be neutral when it comes to commenting on elections.

Say “no comment,” and whatever you do, do not say something that would make it appear as though you are supporting one candidate over the other.

If I were Trump’s attorney, I would immediately file to have Jackson recused from any case involving the election or Donald Trump after her comments.

Jackson was asked about Kamala Harris’ candidacy, and she responded, "I know a little bit about being a first, you know. I think a lot of people were very happy about my appointment in part because they saw it as progress for the country.”

She added, "I'm not only so honored, but whenever we see someone moving into a position where no one has ever been, it gives a lot of people hope.”

Jackson also addressed her dissenting opinion on presidential immunity, stating, "My view as I expressed in my dissent was that we have a criminal justice system in which everyone is subject to the law and if there are special circumstances in any situation, we have recognized some defenses, self-defense, you know, defense of others, there are certain legal situations in which a person can be excused, and maybe there’s a situation in which if someone is president and something happens and they need to use certain authorities or powers, that could be a defense as well.”

I have ripped both Jackson and Sotomayor over their comments because the opinion released by the court was nothing more than a reaffirmation of what had already been decided.

There is no blanket immunity, even for a president.

The only acts that are protected by immunity are official acts as president, not acts that would be deemed those of a private citizen, such as Trump’s business recordkeeping or the rally, or rogue acts, such as a president trying to order a hit against a political opponent, as Sotomayor suggested would be immune.

I have been adamant from day one that the courts would find Trump’s fraud allegations and the events that took place on January 6 as being outside the office of the president, therefore, prosecutable.

It's another matter altogether if those charges hold up, but the last people who should add drama to this are Supreme Court justices.

Regarding Jackson’s comments on Harris, her saying that Harris is adding “hope” to this election could be considered an endorsement. If I were the GOP and Donald Trump, I would be going after her along those lines right now to have her removed from any case that may come before the Supreme Court related to the election or Donald Trump on that basis.