♪ Christiane: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour and Company."

Here is what is coming up.

>> Journalists are essential for our democracies.

Christiane: Diane Foley survived the worst tragedy any parent could face, person James assassinated a ISIS.

We talked about how she turned her grief into grace.

>> That is what committee is based on, when you touch the truth, it's like a bell, it will just cut through.

Christiane: An inside look at a new Broadway hit about women's friendship and liberation set in the summer of 1976.

I speak with the award-winning actresses Laura Linney and Jessica Hecht.

Then, holding the high Court to account.

Maine Senator Angus King talks Supreme Court ethics with Walter Isaacson.

♪ >> "Amanpour and Company" is made possible by the Anderson Family Fund, Sue and Edgar Wachenheim III, Candace King Weir, Jim Atwood and Leslie Williams.

The family foundation of Layla and Mickey Strauss.

Mark J. Lechner.

Seaton Jay Melvin, Bernard and Denise Schwartz Koo and Patricia Yuen, committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities.

Barbara Hope Zuckerberg.

We try to live in the moment, to not miss what is right in front of us.

At Mutual of America, we believe taking care of tomorrow can help you make the most of today.

Mutual of America Financial Group, retirement services and investments.

Additional support provided by these funders.

And by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you.

♪ Christiane: Welcome to the program, everyone.

I am Christiane Amanpour in London.

It has been Hostage Week in Washington, D.C. with activities to call attention to Americans wrongfully detained in foreign prisons.

Family members and supporters are holding a rally and vigil bringing attention to their plight.

More than 50 Americans are trapped in countries rigid from Iran to Venezuela to Russia and the nature of the threat is changing and growing.

The primary captors are now state actors, liberty targeting journalists, aid workers and others, using them as pawns to advance whatever claims they have against the United States.

Driving force is the James W. Farley Foundation which fights to free the wrongfully detained and protect journalists around the world.

The foundation was launched by Diane Foley, mother of James Foley, who was publicly and horrifically executed by ISIS almost 10 years ago.

I spoke with Diane Foley about channeling her grief into action.

Welcome to the program.

Guest: It's an honor to be here.

Christiane: A lot of attention this week in Washington on hostages, those wrongfully detained, prisoners, and of course, journalists.

It has been nearly 10 years since your son James was brutally murdered by ISIS in the Syrian desert.

Talk to us about -- clearly the grief never goes away.

How have you dealt with it, what have you done over the last 10 years?

Guest: What has helped the most is just trying to continue the work that Jim would have been doing.

Had he been able to get home, he would have been fighting every day that our government and other allied countries like the United Kingdom, would recognize the threat of international hostage-taking, and would prioritize the return of our citizens.

Christiane: That is what you are working very hard for under the auspices of the foundation you set up in your son's name.

And I see you wearing a pin, what are you trying to get the government to codify on this level?

Because already they have a thing called "wrongfully detained, which allegedly pushes these cases to the top of their priority.

Guest: That was a big win thanks to the family of Robert Levinson, the Robert Levinson Hostage-taking and Accountability Act.

However, we are working very hard to make sure that act is funded for victims particularly those wrongfully detained by other state actors in the world.

We are trying to codify a flag that, similar to the prisoners of war flag that can be hung at various times of the year for all Americans and the world, to know that this very day, where we are freed, there are innocent Americans and British citizens, other people who are wrongfully arrested or held hostage around the world by criminals, and by governments.

Christiane: Well, that is the thing, your foundation has actually come up with some pretty amazing statistics.

An uptick in the number of Americans held abroad, 170.5%.

Interestingly, Americans are now being taken hostage more often by foreign governments, than the kind of terrorist militants who took and killed your son.

This is incredible.

Only four countries held Americans wrongfully between 2001-2005.

19 countries currently do.

What, in your opinion, is the reason for this?

Guest: I feel a lot of countries are using this as a tactic of war, in many cases.

They are realizing that it is a way they can hold our government hostage, try to interfere with foreign policy, economy, and the travel of our citizens worldwide.

I know that our government has to take this increasingly seriously and have a more strategic plan for the return of these innocent citizens, but also for our strong deterrence for the horror of international hostage-taking.

Christiane: You say the horror, and again, your son exemplifies the horror.

It is horrible.

Some people say that journalists make a choice, they go out there and they do this work, that the chips fall where they may.

But you don't agree with that, you don't think it is just an individual, selfish or professional choice?

Guest: Not at all.

Not anymore that a policeman or environment or rescue workers or humanitarian folks, journalists are essential for our democracies.

They are foundational.

The free press and informed citizens are essential for our government.

So they are performing essential public service.

And I feel like our governments must have their backs to the best of their ability.

Christiane: Can I just ask you, if you don't mind, you talk about it in your upcoming book, but you took the extraordinary step, after the trial of the ISIS crew who took your son, you sat down with one of them.

Can you walk us through why and what you did?

Did you shake hands?

Did he sit across the table?

In your discussions?

Guest: Part of it was thanks to Alexander Cody.

That was part of his radio...

He negotiated an opportunity to do that.

Christiane: He was one of the killers, right?

Guest: Yes, he was one of the jihadists who kidnapped, tortured and was responsible for Jim's murder as well as other Americans and British citizens.

Alexander Cody was offered an opportunity.

I met with them three different times, with other people present.

We were not alone.

But Jim would have wanted me to do that.

He would not have wanted me to be afraid of him.

And I think it was good for us both.

I think it was good for Alexander to hear about Jim, and for me to hear about some of the reasons Alexander was brought to this point in this life.

Christiane: You are a woman of great faith.

They acted, they say, according to their faith, but the majority of Muslims say that is not what Islam is about.

Did he apologize to you?

Did he even tell you where they have buried or disposed of your son?

Guest: No.

He did not really give us any information, in spite of a lot of hours of talking to people.

He was very evasive about that.

But he definitely expressed remorse.

He will never see his family again, and will spend the rest of his life in prison.

So it is really a loss for everyone, truly for everyone.

But he definitely expressed remorse.

Christiane: As we know, one of the prominent journalists today or who had become permanent because of being taken by Russia, the government of Russia, Evan Gershkovich, he has been top of mind for the president and the journalistic community, obviously.

This is what the Secretary of State Antony Blinken told Fox News this week about what it would take, and what they were doing to get Evan released.

Just take a listen.

>> I know there are some sanctions in place because of it, but there isn't any message going to the Russians that if they take Americans, there will be severe consequences.

How do we do more to stop the detaining of Americans?

>> We have taken a number of measures, including sanctions, across the years and across cases.

What you are seeing is the biggest sanction of all, is to further Russia's isolation.

>> But that has not stopped them from taking Americans.

>> At some point, along with the isolation and with measures that we can take and that others take and by the way, we are working with other countries to build an even stronger correlation to make sure that there are strong consequences for any country that engages in these practices.

Christiane: Diane, what do you make of that?

There was just sort of a -- yes, we will isolate Russia.

Is that satisfying to you and the other families?

Guest: No.

However, I believe our government is finally recognizing the problem and struggling with it, just like we all are.

How do we make this hurt?

How do we strategically deter the use of innocent people as political parties and tactics of war?

But the Foley Foundation has continued pushing our government to prioritize this and take a stronger approach while at the same time, prioritizing the return of U.S. citizens.

So this is very complex.

There is nothing -- it really requires the best of all of our countries, the international community, to address this issue.

It really does.

We have been pushing for a reevaluation of our current hostage enterprise to deal with the fact that now, 90% of U.S. nationals are in fact taken by state governments, which is totally different, as you said.

Christiane just 10 years ago when it was terrorists, criminals, pirates.

So this is becoming a huge issue that requires the best we can do to deal with.

Christiane: I think you discussed this with me before in a previous interview, when Jim was taken and you were trying to find out where he was.

I believe you did not think that his disappearance, his kidnapping, was a top priority for the U.S. government.

They urge families not to talk about their loved ones who had been taken, and definitely not to negotiate under pain of potential arrest or prosecution yourselves.

Just confirm that -- I am remembering right, yes?

Guest: Yes, absolutely.

We were pretty much on our own.

I didn't realize it at the time.

I don't think our government knew what to do with me.

I was an annoyance.

There was no structure to deal with us.

We are light-years ahead in the sense that we now have a hostage enterprise with a very talented special envoy for hostage affairs, and a very engaged security council who deals with our national security adviser Jake Sullivan, and the president.

The problem is these issues are complicated and increasingly difficult now that the majority of captors are in fact state governments.

Christiane: Right.

Guest: Because they are very shrewd about how to interfere with our policy.

So it is nothing simple about it.

What I am heartened by is the fact that at least now we recognize that, and the taking of Evan Gershkovich, the talented journalist who has been working in Russia, in such a blatant disregard for his immunity as a journalist, is an affront to our country and to our nation.

Christiane: Just to focus on another issue, yes, it is complicated.

For instance, the fact that the Iranian government is also holding seven Americans who have been there -- one of them whose name I know you know, for 7.5 years now.

But there is another issue around the hostages.

The fact that many of them in the past have actually secured there American families' meetings with the president.

Whether it was Biden as vice president, Obama, Trump or whoever.

They did often meet with the families of the hostages.

That is what you can call them, right?

Not prisoners, they are hostages by these state governments who use their American passport as a pawn.

These families have all been on my program, begging to have at least a meeting with the president, for the families to feel that it is a top priority and to be able to turn.

But he hasn't done.

Guest: I know.

And I truly don't understand it.

Everyone else has talked to them.

I cannot answer for our president.

I do know that it is a priority for him.

His national security adviser Jake Sullivan came and spoke in front of a group of hostage families.

Some of them were there.

And others in this situation.

So the administration is very aware.

And those brave family members will continue to demand a meeting, and I pray that our president will at some point do that.

However, the fact that he has not met does not mean that he is not looking at the issue.

I just think that Iran is a particularly difficult captor to deal with.

They consistently want to interfere with anything that we are doing.

So again, it is a very poignant issue.

We will keep up the fight, Christiane, no matter what.

Christiane: That is great to hear from somebody with such a tragic experience and you have dedicated your life to this class.

Thank you very much for keeping these hostages in the limelight.

Guest: Thank you for your work.

I so appreciate the support.

Christiane: And now, we look at two more formidable women, this time on Broadway.

These women earned recognition and respect for their work on movies and on TV, but for each, the theater is their happy place.

You are appearing together for the first time in the Manhattan Club's new play called "Summer, 1976."

It is the story of two women who become fast friends during America's bicentennial summer, an insightful account, deeply resonant, especially for school mom friends.

This week Jessica Hecht received a Tony award nomination.

We spoke about their relationship, and about the pressure placed on even the most successful female actors.

Laura Linney and Jessica Hecht, welcome to the program.

Your two-woman play on Broadway is amazing, it has got great reviews, and it is about the specific friendship in a specific year, 1976, but yet the women seem so different.

What is it about the characters that you liked?

What attracted you first?

Guest: Jessica has a wonderful line in the play where she says, "No one is one thing."

That is something I believed and witnessed for a long time.

I love how the characters present in one way.

Their persona is different than how they present... is different from that.

So you see, hopefully in this very short period of time the totality of someone's psychology and how they fit and disconnect from each other as well.

Christiane: You make friendships around your kids.

The school mom, so to speak.

You never see the kids.

But they are fully described by the parents.

Guest: When you have small kids, you also have that experience where you think, "I would never be friends with that woman, but for the sake of my child, I will engage."

Then the door opens and you are, like, "That person is incredible."

You look at how much you want to grow at the time in life.

I think that is the portal that you enter the play from.

Christiane: So is that what this is about?

About how the two of you grow for that period of time?

Because in the end, you realize that this very full story actually has only taken place over a few months.

Guest: Mm-hmm.

It is unusual that way.

Strikes like lightning.

Very intense.

Then it disconnects almost as violently as it connected.

They come together in an expected way.

The friendship has run its course.

Christiane: But also, you two are very different characters.

You come across as a rather starchy control freak -- Guest: Elegant.

Christiane: All of that.

[laughter] And yet you are not who you say you are.

You pretend to be a professor.

Guest: Correct.

I find that interesting, how people project themselves, their self-aware persona, what they want the persona to be and the reality of who they are under that.

Guest: I love listening to you because it is so much what happens when I am acting with you and I am that close.

And you think that you are projecting something, and in reality, somebody who is quite close to you is seeing so many different things vibrate that they have gone beyond what you think you are projecting to the audience and they are just relating.

For instance, this character Laura plays, to me she always seems quite lonely.

You think you are projecting this kind of self possession that is unflappable.

And I am only seeing somebody who seems so lonely.

That is what the characters both do for each other.

Guest: Yeah.

Christiane: Your character comes across as a free spirit -- you smoke pot -- and your character ends up being quite shocked and left alone.

I want to play the clips so our audience can see.

This one is a summer day, when you brought your young daughters to school and to the pool.

And Diana is not impressed.

[video clip] >> You are a snob, Diana.

You can't help it, but if I want to read...summertime, I am going to do it.

All that stuff should be reading from the start I see on your workshop, Henry James, Virginia Woolf and Thomas Hardy, I read them too.

I read that crap in college and grad school.

I am aware that "Middlemarch" is better than "Coma."

You don't have to educate me.

It's a controversial stance.

But when it comes to narrative fiction, George Eliot does have a slight edge over Robin Cook!

Christiane: Break this down for us.

Guest: I think it is preconceived notions.

The superficial of what you see first.

Just because somebody likes to read pop-culture books, "The Thornbirds," doesn't mean they are not deep thinkers.

No one is one thing.

For some reason I think culture wants to label quickly.

Know what you are dealing with and move on.

As opposed to thinking what are the complexities that make this person a person?

The things that actually can learn from this person who I feel like I can learn nothing from?

There is a lot I can learn them.

I think it forces people to slow down a little bit or hopefully it encourages people to slow down when you meet people who are different than you are and see what is really going on there.

Christiane: In one of the reviews, I read that it is a feminist play.

Do you think that?

Guest: I think it's a play about evolution, human evolution, and how difficult it is to actually relate to what society is telling us to do at any given moment.

It's about the human experience of another person, like holding a mirror up to what we could be as opposed to society.

It works on a lot of levels, but I was thinking of it in relationship to what people of this age -- because we play characters in our late 20s in the bulk of the play and then we jump -- Guest: The chemistry of the two people colliding will make you grow and evolve.

Someone will say something, someone will do something, give you advice, and your brain will open.

And maybe a little bit of courage jumps out.

Maybe a sense of perspective sinks into place and you have grown because of the gift of an intersection.

Christiane: I am not one of those people who think that only women should write about women.

The play was written by a man.

Did he ask for your advice or your input?

[laughter] Were you stunned by how he got the facts of women?

Guest: Yes.

We were sort of stunned by it.

He is a wonderful and amazing playwright, but he is a white, straight man writing about intimacies, and the dynamics of female friendship at that age, which is very -- as all of us women know, you meet your person and it is very intense.

And how he has been able to to channel all of this, is something that we shake our heads about on a daily basis.

[laughter] Guest: Totally!

And with our director, Dan Solomon.

He is an exquisite thinker and I feel like the combination of the two of them looking at women's relationships has been a revelation.

Guest: I think we brought a lot to it as well.

The unspoken stuff I think adds a lot.

The words are spectacular.

It is great fun to do.

[laughter] Christiane: You mean the looks and interaction onstage, or what you do in the notes offstage?

Guest: In the play.

Guest: The rhythm.

Guest: The thought behind the line, which is where the magic is, I find, for me, how you find the thought behind the line.

What is within the structure of that sentence would lead me to something psychologically interesting, that helps the narrative, that is actable.

Christiane: We were not expecting the romantic twist and the disaster in Alice's life.

I will not do a spoiler alert, but they twist pretty dramatically and suddenly this perfect wife thinking she has a perfect marriage, she has had a confrontation with her husband, goes to her friend, Diana, and you try to comfort her and her daughter.

This is the clip.

[video clip] >> Diana found some old jars and cut holes in the tops.

They ran, catching fireflies in the backyard and they asked when they had to go to bed.

>> No bedtime.

You are on your own recognizance!

[laughter] >> They asked what that meant.

[laughter] >> It is liberty hall, girls.

You can stay up all night if you want to.

Run riot.

Cry havoc.

Let slip the dogs of war!

Raaageee against the dying of the light.

You can even use my art supplies.

[laughter] >> They looked a little worried, and they retreated into the backyard with their jars.

[laughter] Christiane: So this moment becomes a turning point in the relationship.

Is this where the disconnect begins?

Why there?

Guest: I think so.

I have been in those situations, I think all of us have, or a good friend will say the exact opposite of what you want to hear, and you are so stunned.

And it does usually push you away, it is the right thing to do.

And they usually figure it out later -- I certainly figured it out later.

It is a test in a friendship.

Because then you do come into today.

Christiane: And you have a chance meeting, essentially.

Guest: Yes.

Christiane: There are little twists is that surprisingly, nonetheless, it is clear you have nothing left in common.

Guest: We drift apart.

Some of that is circumstance and some of that is choice.

Guest: And we have a tremendous amount of instant nostalgia.

At least I do, that is, as anybody experiencing that kind of instantaneous nostalgia, it is gutting.

Because it's a moment when you thought everything would be ok. You reflect back and everything was not ok.

Guest: There are also the friends who are a witness to significant times of your life, whether it is knowing someone who has passed away, a parent or friend or someone who has lived through trauma with you, who has lived through a great celebration with you.

They are witnesses to that.

In some ways, they are the only connection back to it in a visceral way.

People do carry that within them.

Christiane: What do you feel from the audience?

Obviously there is a lot of laughter.

[laughter] Guest: We were very surprised with the laughter.

We were not expecting it to be as enjoyable and as raucous.

Christiane: Did we miss the plot here?

Guest: No, I think it's an honest reaction.

There is something about the truth that tickles.

Guest: Oh, that is a lovely thing to say.

Guest: That is what comedy is based on actually, when you touch the truth in the way, like a bell, it will just cut through, and I think that is what people respond to.

Guest: And people don't know why they are crying.

I will come back and they are crying and they don't know why they are crying and they want us to help them figure it out.

[laughter] Christiane: You were crying.

I noticed there were tears.

Guest: The director had wanted us to both -- Christiane: Even when you were taking your vows.

Guest: I think it's the residual emotion that you build up during the show.

Guest: We are so grateful that we make it through.

[laughter] Christiane: It is hard, isn't it?

90 minutes.

No break.

Just the two of you.

Guest: And this one is particularly tricky to execute.

Christiane: Because?

Guest: The language is difficult.

It requires a certain pace, a set-up.

It requires emotion that you can't escape through or go over.

It is demanding... in the best way.

Christiane: Did you know each other before?

What is your friendship?

Guest: Admiration previously, and now just great, deep, emotional.

Guest: Here is an example.

Jessica and I have known each other for years, the only time we spent together was when we went to visit a mutual friend that was dying.

She drove me to the hospital -- where was the hospital?

Guest: In the Bronx.

Guest: In the Bronx.

We went to visit a mutual friend?

Guest: Somebody who worked at our theater.

Guest: We were hurt.

Christiane: A serious bond.

Guest: But she lives in the two of us.

Even if we hadn't done this play together, she would have connected us.

Christiane: I do want to ask you, in the formative years, -- clearly this is a big moment for female empowerment, but in your business, women have not had that platform and that authority for a long time.

I guess it has just come out because of this new documentary about Brooke Shields, "Pretty Baby."

You knew her when you were kids.

She tells the most appalling story about basic exploitation.

What more can you add about that?

How did that make you feel as you were growing up?

Did you ever feel that as you were coming up through the ranks as well?

Guest: I think it was, in a very insidious way, naturalized and accepted as the behavior that one should fall into.

But it was always uncomfortable.

Particularly when you are a child, your antenna is at a cross current, wanting to please the adults around you versus when you know something is not right and you are sort of painted into a corner as a child.

So, how Brooke has been able to have the wonderful life she has now is miraculous, and a testament to something within her, some survival instinct, some incredibly unshakable decency within her that was galvanized by all of that challenge, and I think it was a very difficult time.

And I think each gear has its own difficult time.

I am sure in 30 years, they will look back to her today and point out something that we assume we take for granted and say, look how terrible that was, and we will go back and say, that was really terrible all this stuff that we participated in.

Christiane: When you think about it now, do you think it will evolve more for the better?

Guest: Women's bodies, which is a huge part of it, I pray through my own daughter is 23 and look at how she relates to her own body and other women's and has such an appreciation for living in whatever body you have, which is really the first part of what we grapple with as women -- I think that part, this body-positive concept, is a huge step.

But it still doesn't mean that your own shame and your own issues are appeased by that.

It is a step forward.

It is the way the documentary ends, right.

Barbara Walters said, "What are your measurements?"

I think that was so painful.

Barbara Walters being a journalistic icon -- I don't mean to impugn -- Christiane: She was an icon to me, but of course -- Guest: I think this documentary is really quite, truly marvelous.

I think what Laura said in the documentary and just now, has echoed.

My daughter watched it.

Many young women are watching and feeling like, wow, at least got one little thing going.

Christiane: That is a good message.

What is next for Jessica Hecht onstage?

On film?

Guest: I don't know.

[laughter] I will just say that I am actually developing a play myself, helping to write one that is based on a lesser-known Brecht play about a woman who becomes radicalized for the sake of her son.

It is my adventure into creating something for myself.

Christiane: That is the biggest change, I think, in the generation, self generated work.

When I was growing up, it was never a concept that we could do that for ourselves.

It wasn't even an idea that you could even birth...

It did not exist.

And now, there is a self empowerment now about creating your own work.

And I see the younger students and even as older people, getting on the bandwagon and feeling like, what am I waiting for?

I have something to offer.

Christiane: Thank you so much, indeed.

Guest: Our pleasure.

Christiane: And next to the U.S. Supreme Court which is facing an ethical dilemma.

Lawyers and lawmakers are calling for the high court to adopt an ethics code of conduct, after Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch were accused of violations.

Chief Justice John Roberts declines to discuss the matter with congress, now the independent Senator Angus King has introduced new, bipartisan legislation: The Supreme Court Code of Conduct Act.

If it is passed, it will require the high Court to establish its own ethics code in line with other federal judges.

To discuss this new bill and the senator's attempt to restore trust in the institution, he is talking to Walter Isaacson.

Walter: Thank you.

Senator Angus King, welcome back to the show.

Sen. King: Great to be with you, Walter.

Look forward to talking about some pretty serious issues this week.

Walter: Including the Supreme Court, because you've always been at the forefront of trying to restore trust in institutions.

But we've been hit with some stories recently about the Supreme Court.

That was the case of justice Clarence Thomas accepting luxury vacations from the billionaire Harlan Crow who bought the justice's mother's house and renovated it while she was still there.

Likewise, we have had a story about Neil Gorsuch, who didn't reveal the name of the person who bought a $1.8 million piece of property, was somebody who was the head of a firm with cases in front of the Court.

Why do these types of stories matter?

Sen. King: They matter, Walter, because the Supreme Court does not have a police force or an army.

The whole structure of the Supreme Court depends on public trust, on its moral authority, if you will.

Stories like what we've seen in the last couple of weeks undermine that public trust.

And in fact, the recent polls indicate that the confidence in the Supreme Court is at the lowest level I think in history, certainly in recent history.

So what Lisa Murkowski and I are trying to do, and we will talk about our bill, it is a Supreme Court bill.

We are basically saying, adopt a code of ethics because that is what is needed to reassure the public after these recent revelations.

I mean, one of the things about these regulations were that they weren't even reported.

Supreme Court justices do have financial reporting requirements, and they didn't report these vacations and bought houses and those kinds of things, so...

It is all about public confidence and it is a wider problem, as you know, in our government generally.

Democracy rests on trust.

This is one effort to shore up the trust in one of our most important institutions.

Walter: You say that you and Senator Murkowski, a Republican senator, are working on a code of ethics, a code of conduct bill that would ask the Supreme Court to do these things.

What exactly is in that bill?

Sen. King: It's really simple.

It's a three-page bill.

We don't write the code of conduct, we don't think that's appropriate for the congress, basically what all our bills says is, Take the next year.

Write your own code of conduct.

Make it public, and then establish someone within the court system whose job it is to oversee the implementation of that code.

By the way, Walter, every judge in America is subject to a traditional code of conduct, except the nine justices of the Supreme Court.

What we are talking about here is not very radical.

This is not congress saying what the rules should be.

We are saying, "You make your own rules, and then be public and transparent about it."

In our bill we say a year, but it could be done in the weekend because there is already a judicial code of conduct that governs every other judge in the country.

All they have to do is add "And the U.S. Supreme Court."

It's ridiculous.

I don't know how many judges we have in the country, 15,000?

All but nine are subject to a judicial code of conduct.

And those nine have lifetime jobs, and some of the most important decisions in terms of power over American lives, it just seems to me common sense.

Walter: Even if it is common sense and it seems to make sense, what right do you have to tell them to do it?

You are a separate branch of government.

We keep the separation of powers important.

Why should congress have the right to tell the Supreme Court what to do?

Sen. King: I think it's a good constitutional question.

Justice Roberts declined to appear before the judicial committee.

I understand that, I think there are separation of power issues here.

I understand that under the Constitution, I believe it is article three, a Supreme Court is established.

I think the congress does have the power not to necessarily say what the standard should be, but simply say to the Court, you should do this.

They are to do it themselves.

They are to take the hint.

There is no question that they have the power to do it themselves.

We shouldn't have an act of congress to require them to do it.

But so far, they have not taken that step, they have resisted it.

Justice Roberts sent a long letter to Dick Durbin and the judiciary committee and said, "We consult with people and we will follow the substance of the rules."

That's not good enough.

We're trying to help them to help themselves.

This is all about preserving the authority and the credibility of the Supreme Court.

So I believe that congress does have that power.

But beyond that, I wish in the next two weeks, Justice Roberts would say "You can put your legislation away, we will adopt a code of conduct."

Walter: In a letter to senator Dick Durbin, who tried to get him to testify before the judiciary committee, Justice Thomas said, "We already have a statement on ethics and principles and practices."

It was a couple of pages, I read it.

Why isn't that enough?

Sen. King: It doesn't really set forth any standards.

To me the key words in that were "We will follow the substance of the standards."

That is not good enough.

Following the substance.

How about following the rules?

Tell us what the rules are.

It is hard to tell whether conduct is appropriate if you don't have any standard for defining what is appropriate.

Justice Thomas, for example, justified his failure to report a $500,000 vacation by saying, "I consulted people and they said it was ok, and it is ok to take hospitality."

It just isn't clear.

For example, in the main judicial code of conduct if there is an exception for hospitality, but you know what it says?

"Ordinary hospitality."

That is a dinner now and then.

Maybe a round of golf.

It's not a private jet and a yacht in the Philippines.

Nobody would define that as "ordinary hospitality."

That is what I mean.

Let's have a code of judicial conduct.

I have been surprised for many years, that this did not exist.

I keep going back to this point -- the whole project that Lisa Murkowski and I are engaged in is on behalf of the Supreme Court.

We are merely saying, Here is something you really should do in order to reestablish your credibility.

I can't believe that John Roberts wants his legacy on the Supreme Court to be a catastrophic decline in public confidence in his very important institution.

Walter: Say your bill passes, and say the Supreme Court says "You don't have the right to tell us what to do."

What happens then?

Sen. King: There would be a case and the Supreme Court would decide it.

They are the Supreme Court, they interpret the law and the constitution, and I suppose they could have that result.

It would be an interesting result where they could make themselves exempt, but if they did that, it would be one more blow.

This is Shakespeare.

"Methinks he doth protest too much."

If you are following some kind of vague standards that are undefined, then why are you resisting so stoutly, doing something that again, applies to every judge in America, including every federal judge in America?

It doesn't make any sense to me that they are resisting so strongly, something that I think ordinary citizens would say, "Huh?

Why aren't they doing this?"

Walter: Let me ask you about another story involving the Supreme Court, and that is Justice Alito saying to The Wall Street Journal that he thinks he knows who the leaker is of the Dobbs case draft that caused such controversy.

Tell me how that plays into undermining the credibility of the Court.

Sen. King: I was a little bit surprised.

The Court did an investigation and they believe the announcement was, "We couldn't find the leaker, we couldn't get to the bottom of it."

If he knows something, he should share that with the chief.

But, you know, there are other issues that have not gotten the level of publicity that we have had recently about people who are contributors to -- I think it's called the Supreme Court Historical Association, and they have special access to the judges' dinners, dinners at people's homes.

Walter: Doesn't the senate do that as well?

Sen. King: Yeah.

Number one, we don't have lifetime appointments.

We have to answer to the voters every two years in the house and every six years in the senate.

I am not saying judges can't have a social life, but I am saying that the heart of the judicial canon of ethics, I remember learning this in law school, is that judges must avoid impropriety and they should avoid the appearance of impropriety, avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Why?

Because again, to go back, the Court's authority rests upon public trust.

If people think the courts are rigged or they are not fair or subject to influence by special interests, then they're going to say, Why do we have to listen to these people?

Why do we have to abide by their rulings?

President Jackson famously said "If the Supreme Court wants to enforce its order, it can have its own army" or something along those lines.

You are a historian, you know better than me.

The point is, it is the moral authority of the Court that is so important.

We live in an age of declining confidence in public institutions.

And here I am, a member of congress, which has a pretty low approval rating itself.

But at least we are answerable to the people.

This is more important.

You have got nine people who have enormous power over America's lives.

Lifetime appointments.

Now I will go back to Madison.

Or even go back further to the Romans, you know the quote -- Quis custodis, ipso custodia?"

"Who will guard the guardians?"

He said, if men were angels, no government would be necessary.

If angels were to staff the government over men, no checks and balances would be necessary.

However, first we have to empower the government to control the governed, and then oblige the government to control itself.

That is really what we're talking about here, Who will guard the guardians?

All we are talking about just, tell us what your rules are and be transparent about it to restore confidence this critically important institution.

Walter: You are an independent, but you caucus as a democrat.

The cosponsor of your bill is Lisa Murkowski, a Republican.

It gives the veneer at least of bipartisanship, that it seems that even your proposals have run into very partisan opposition, almost all the Republicans other than Senator Murkowski and a few others, have slammed it.

Sen. King: I have not given up.

Lisa and I have not done our missionary work yet.

Mitch McConnell went to the floor I think the morning -- he was not talking about our bill, he was basically saying, we will not do anything on Supreme Court ethics.

That is an attack on the Court.

This week there was a hearing at the judiciary committee on this issue, and the Republicans took the position that it's an attack on the Court and an attack on Justice Thomas.

That is not true.

Our bill is forward-looking.

It's not retroactive.

It doesn't impose any penalties.

It basically just says, a year from now, Supreme Court, tell us what the rules are going to be.

Make them public and then we will move on as cases arise.

But you are right, the Republicans have decided that this is just unacceptable.

Interesting, Dick Durbin, chair of the judiciary committee, wrote a letter to the chief justice on this issue in February of 2012, when Barack Obama was president.

So it is not as if this issue has just arisen because of the ideological nature of the Court, it has arisen, I think we have to be honest with one another, because of these, I believe, outrageous revelations that have come out over the last couple weeks.

That highlighted the issue.

But this has been an issue that has been around for a long time.

Again, this would go away if the Supreme Court did for itself what we are proposing.

Our proposal could not be more moderate, if you will, in that we are not telling them what the rules should be.

"You make your rules and tell us what they are."

Walter: I really don't get this.

Why couldn't you enlist a broad spectrum, ideologically, in favor of something like that?

Sen. King: Well, as I say, I have not given up.

The Republican caucus have decided that this will be a stand your ground issue.

Lisa Murkowski is a person of enormous integrity and common sense, and she said, "This makes sense.

Let's do it."

I plan to talk to some of my colleagues, but sometimes we are talking peer pressure.

As I say -- I can't remember the morning, I think it was last Wednesday -- Mitch McConnell said on the floor, "We are not going to do this."

So it became a caucus issue.

I think it ought to be a bipartisan issue, it ought to be a 99-1 issue, it is so straightforward and consistent again, with the rules that apply to every other judge in the country, state and federal.

Walter: Tell me, why are we having such problems these days creating bipartisan consensus in the senate and other places?

Sen. King: I am going to surprise you and disagree a little bit.

There is a lot more bipartisanship around here than people think.

Number 1, we don't hate each other.

If you're having trouble sleeping, go to C-Span and watch a vote on C-Span2 in the senate.

What people see is -- I tell people in Maine, it looks like the dump on Saturday morning.

You will see people milling around and chatting, almost always in a bipartisan way.

You will see John Cornyn talking to Tim Kaine, or Gary Peters over there talking to Ron Johnson about homeland security.

You will see these little groups moving around.

The idea -- you hear the word "toxic," that we don't like each other.

That just is not true.

Number two, in the past two years we have passed seven or eight major bills, five of which were entirely bipartisan.

The infrastructure bill.

The veterans pact act.

The chips and science act.

The budget in december.

The media only likes to report the conflict.

You never read a headline that says "5,000 planes landed safely yesterday."

The story is about the plane that didn't land safely.

So I don't want to overstate it, it's not like we are all linking arms around here, but it is better than people think, and I hope that that can provide a basis for bipartisan work in the kinds of areas that we are talking about.

That is the way it ought to work.

Walter: Senator Angus King, thank you so much for joining us.

Sen. King: Thank you, Walter.

Great to be with you.

Christiane: Accountability is always vital.

Join us tomorrow night, when we'll talk to Cindy McCain about her newest role, leading the U.N.'s World Food Programme.

That's it for our program tonight.

If you want to find out what is coming up on the show every night, sign up for our newsletter at pbs.org/amanpour.

Thanks for watching.

♪