Ketanji Brown Jackson Says She’s ‘Prepared’ If The 2024 Election Winds Up Before The Supreme Court

If, as expected, the 2024 election winds up being close, the results may wind up in front of the United States Supreme Court, which would then be forced to rule on who won, much as they did in 2000, declaring George W. Bush president instead of then-Vice President Al Gore based on a few hundred controversial ballots in the state of Florida.

Is the high court ready for such a scenario? According to Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, she’s pondered such a scenario and is “as prepared as anyone can be.”

Speaking with Norah O’Donnell of CBS News, according to HuffPost, Jackson explained her thoughts on the matter.

With a laugh, Jackson flipped the script on O’Donnell, saying, “Let me ask you, are you prepared for all of the news cycles that you’re getting as a result of this election?”

“Um, no,” the host replied.

“No, exactly,” Jackson said. “I mean, 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 — if that should be necessary.”

Justice Jackson also weighed in on the high court’s controversial ruling in July that a president has immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. Jackson dissented in that decision, warning that it “breaks new and dangerous ground.”

“In your dissent, you wrote that, ‘The court declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can, under circumstances yet to be fully determined, become a law unto himself.’ Sounds like a warning,” O’Donnell noted.

“You were concerned about broad immunity?” O’Donnell inquired.

“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,” Jackson responded.

The 6-3 decision was crafted by the six conservative members of the court, with the three progressive justices, Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissenting, arguing that giving such total immunity to a president makes him accountable to no one, much like a king.