The Legal Times reports on a noteworthy inauguration that took place last month. Justice Thomas, in a private ceremony, gave the oath of office to newly elected Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker, a protege of former Chief Justice Roy Moore. Then things really got interesting:
The following day, Parker was back in Montgomery for a second, less official swearing-in by none other than Moore himself. "I have been doubly blessed to have been sworn into office by two heroes of the judiciary," Parker said in a statement.
In remarks he gave after his second swearing-in, Parker reported that the day before, Thomas "admonished us to remember that the work of a justice should be evaluated by one thing and one thing only -- whether or not he is faithful to uphold his oath, an oath which, as Justice Thomas pointed out, is not to the people, not to the state, and not to the constitution, but an oath which is to God Himself."
Parker continued, "I stand here today, humbled by this charge, but a grateful man who aspires to adhere to that tradition embodied in the sentiments spoken to me yesterday by Justice Clarence Thomas, and the commitment to our Founders' vision of authority and the rule of law personified by Chief Justice Roy Moore."
Parker concluded, "May we boldly proclaim that it is God, Jesus Christ, who gives us life and liberty. May we, as justices who have taken oaths to our God, never fear to acknowledge Him. And may the Alabama Supreme Court lead this nation in our gratitude, humility, and deference, to the only true source of law, our Creator."
Perhaps the entire episode can be written off as evidence that Justice Thomas wanted to send a clear signal that he is not interested in becoming Chief Justice. Putting that aside, though (and assuming that Parker's quote was accurate), was Justice Thomas suggesting that a judge's accountability is not to the people, or the Constitution, but to God? If Justice Thomas is claiming that a judge's performance of his official duties should be evaluated based only on his adherence to "God's law," that strikes me as highly problematic. Certainly a judge, like everyone else, is accountable to God, but a judge is also accountable to the temporal law. When there is a conflict between the two, the judge may have to recuse himself or resign, but that it not the same as suggesting that a judge's performance as a judge is to be evaluated without regard for the laws of this world. In other words, a judge can't use his vision of God's law as a trump over the positive law; the positive law does not excuse the judge's disregard of God's law, but it might mean that the judge can't be a judge.
As for Justice Parker, can anyone defend the assertion that judges, when acting as judges, should "boldly proclaim" that our life and liberty flow from Jesus Christ?
Former Chief Justice Moore, with the Ten Commandments debacle, dealt a significant blow to those of us who advocate for a religious presence in the public square. His arguments and actions painted a threatening and simplistic caricature of church-state relations. I'm a bit troubled that Justice Thomas seems to be aligning himself with Moore's themes.
UPDATES:
Southern Appeal is way ahead of the Legal Times, having covered the episode here and here.
Perhaps it can best be explained as an Opus Dei conspiracy? (I offer that link more for entertainment than for insight.)
In an email, Stuart Buck suggests that "what Thomas intended to say was not 'judges should follow God rather than the Constitution,' but something more like this: 'When you swear to uphold the Constitution, you are swearing that oath before God; hence, make sure that you take that oath seriously and do uphold the Constitution.' That doesn't strike me as problematic, although I'm a bit nervous by the very fact that Thomas was swearing in Parker in the first place."
Rob
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
The Christianity Today weblog has links to a number of articles (here, here, here, and here) concerning Scotland's First Minister's upcoming "summit on sectarianism." It sounds like Cardinal Keith O'Brien is threatening to "hijack" the summit by -- gasp! -- "demanding the repeal of the Act of Settlement, which bans Catholics from the throne" and suggesting that "there can be no end to religious bigotry without scrapping the 300-year-old law." The nerve of him.
It also appears that high on some people's to-do list is getting the government to "end the 'divisive' system of separate education for Catholics." Thankfully, however -- according to a spokesman -- "[t]he First Minister believes there are more important ways of tackling discrimination than abolishing the Act of Settlement. On education, the issue is that Catholic schools exist and they play an important tole in the drive against sectarianism."
Rick
This article, written by David Kuo -- former Deputy Director of the President's Faith-Based Initiative -- is saddening and sobering, but well worth a read. Here is a taste:
[S]ince the early-1990s I've been what columnist E.J. Dionne termed a "com-con" or "compassionate conservative." I worked for William Bennett and John Ashcroft in the mid-1990s on issues like immigration, welfare, and education as they tried to promote a more compassionate Republican approach. While pure com-cons were never terribly powerful in Republican circles, Bush's endorsement of this progressive conservatism was exciting. And when he became the president, there was every reason to believe he'd be not only pro-life and pro-family, as conservatives tended to be, but also pro-poor, which was daringly radical. After all, there were specific promises he intended to keep.
Sadly, four years later these promises remain unfulfilled in spirit and in fact. . . .
The moment the president announced the faith-based effort, Democratic opposition was frenzied. Hackneyed church-state scare rhetoric made the rounds; this was "radical" and "dangerous" and merely an "attempt to fund Bob Jones University." One Democratic African-American congressman came to the White House to back the president but was threatened by influential liberal groups that they would withhold funding if he didn't denounce the President. The next day he was forced to retract his statement. All of this came despite the fact that former Vice President Al Gore had endorsed virtually identical faith-based measures during the 2000 campaign.
Congressional Republicans matched Democratic hostility with snoring indifference. Sen. Rick Santorum spent endless hours alone lobbying Senate Leadership to give some floor time, any floor time to get a bill to help charities and the poor - even after 9/11 when charities were going out of business because of a decline in giving. He was stiff-armed by his own party.
At the end of the day, both parties played to stereotype -- Republicans were indifferent to the poor and the Democrats were allergic to faith.
Rick
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
As hinted at by Rick's post, there is a strong case to be made for getting government out of the marriage business (and into the civil union business). Arguments grounded in the common good do not persuade me that the longstanding conflation of religious and civil marriage is worth maintaining. Those who see the conflation as having beneficial effects on the public's approach to family commitments must recognize that the effects run both ways, and in recent decades it seems clear that the public's approach to family commitments is having more impact on religious conceptions of marriage than vice versa. I see very little evidence that religious communities are likely to impact marriage as a public institution anytime soon. Today's New York Times, for example, recounts the stalled efforts to introduce "covenant" marriage as an alternative to today's at-will contract approach to the institution. Covenant marriages require pre-marital counseling and drastically limit the available grounds for divorce (to infidelity, abuse, etc.). The article reports that, in the three states to adopt covenant marriage (Arkansas, Louisiana, and Arizona), only one to two percent of couples have opted for it. That statistic alone speaks volumes of the extent to which our vision of marriage has been compromised by its operation as a government entitlement, rather than as a sacred undertaking.
Rob
