Justice Thomas: Context and Culpability

A couple of quick points in response to Rick's defense of Justice Thomas's administration of the judicial oath to Justice Parker: First, do most judges today conceive of their oath as being sworn to God? The dictionary definition of an oath is that of a "solemn, formal declaration or promise to fulfill a pledge, often calling upon God or a god as witness." I think that's quite different than Justice Thomas's understanding that judges are somehow making the promise to God directly. (I'm sure many today would go further and insist that "so help me God" is akin to "under God" in the pledge.)

Second, I don't think we can disconnect the import of Justice Thomas's statement from the context in which it was offered. To borrow from Stanley Fish, this seems an obvious instance where meaning is created by the audience. Just as we can't understand Reagan's famous speech on states' rights without acknowledging the audience to whom it was delivered (in Philadelphia, Mississippi), Justice Parker's past looms large here. If Justice Thomas was presenting a public lecture on his understanding of judicial oaths, no problem. But he was administering the oath to an individual who has repeatedly shown an inclination to equate his judicial responsibilities with his religious responsibilities. Just to cite one example from his campaign, Justice Parker dismisses the case for gay marriage with the less-than-helpful reasoning that "the rule book on marriage has been around since the Garden of Eden." I'm sure that Justice Thomas could have provided much valuable insight and wisdom to Justice Parker; an instruction that his judicial promise is to God, not to the people or the law, is not something that Parker really needs to hear. I have no idea how frequently Justice Thomas performs these private inaugurations for state court judges; if it's somewhat routine, perhaps he just recycled a talk without being cognizant of Parker's background. I agree with Rick that the event should not be blown out of proportion, but Justice Thomas can't escape culpability altogether for an episode that displays either a lack of due diligence or a lack of judgment.

Rob