Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is advocating for an enforceable code of ethics for the Supreme Court, arguing that keeping judges honest shouldn’t be as difficult as finding a reason for Clarence Thomas to return his gift basket.

As public trust in the Supreme Court continues to wane—less than half of Americans approve of the institution—Justice Jackson’s proposed binding ethical code could be just the prescription needed to restore confidence. With comparisons being drawn between justices accepting undisclosed gifts and toddlers at a birthday party eyeing the loot, Jackson argues it’s high time the highest court operated with the same transparency expected of its lower counterpart, and, perhaps, a little less like a secret Santa gone rogue.

In her remarks, Justice Jackson expressed that a binding code of ethics is 'pretty standard' for the federal judiciary. It’s not exactly shocking to hear that what’s considered routine for most judges somehow feels radical when it comes to the Supreme Court. After all, other courts manage to uphold a sense of decorum while doling out verdicts, so why not the justices? It seems that some members of the Court have taken à la carte ethics a bit too far, treating the existing lack of guidelines like an all-you-can-eat buffet of moral flexibility.

Jackson’s endorsement for an enforceable code comes after the Supreme Court faced scrutiny over ethical controversies, particularly involving Justice Clarence Thomas and his undisclosed gifts from billionaire Harlan Crow. These revelations raised eyebrows so high they practically reached the ceiling. The public is left wondering if Clarence opted for the family pack of ethics when it came to his judicial duties, though typical courtroom decorum would recommend forgoing gifts entirely—especially ones that might require an accountant.

While highlighting her considerations for the potential code, Jackson acknowledged that sticking to ethical obligations is paramount for building public trust. Never one to shy away from stating the obvious, she pointed out that trust has been eroded with less than half of Americans casting a favorable eye towards the Supreme Court by August 2024. At this rate, the justices might be more popular at local diners than in the public sphere, and that's saying something when you consider the average diner’s clientele.

In November 2023, the Supreme Court did adopt a code of conduct, which—conveniently enough—lacks any enforcement mechanism. This loophole has given new meaning to the term 'guideline.' Much like telling children not to touch the cookie jar while leaving it open on the counter, it seems that the Court was counting on justices to act in good faith without the pesky business of accountability. Unsurprisingly, this approach hasn’t exactly inspired confidence.

President Biden has also weighed in, joining the chorus calling for an enforceable code of conduct. Perhaps Biden’s mere mention of a structure for accountability could be the nudge the Court needs to move from a suggestion box to a real ethical framework. It’s rather ambitious—almost as if he believes that transparency could eventually lead to a society where no one considers signing up for a lifetime of judicial service as a ticket to a gift-giving extravaganza.

Concerns still linger about how to enforce such ethics rules against justices, who tend to possess an unsettling air of invincibility—similar to cats that knock over cups while maintaining eye contact, devoid of remorse. Lawmakers and legal experts have speculated on potential repercussions, but many parties have remained silent, perhaps overwhelmed by the size of the judicial elephant in the room. Watching the Court navigate this issue might make for a thrilling sport, provided you enjoy unregulated drama.

When it comes to gifts, Jackson reported receiving multiple presents in compliance with federal ethics rules. It’s clear that she’s not opposed to the idea of gift-giving, but like a sensible adult at an office party, she prefers to operate within the guidelines rather than freely tossing decorum to the wind. This attitude sets a stark contrast to other justices, who seem to relish the idea of obscure gifts, as if they were collectibles cataloged in a quirky museum.

Ultimately, Jackson's appeal for a binding code may well reflect a desire to reshape how the public interacts with the highest court in the land. The notion of justices adhering to standards feels almost revolutionary—like suggesting that no one should eat ice cream directly from the carton. Yet, these are the kinds of changes that could bring much-needed accountability when the stakes are the rights and freedoms of citizens. A little transparency might just coax trust out of hiding, and who knows? It could lead to a justice system the people don’t feel is an exclusive club—the perfect playground for those who can afford the right gifts.