Mirror of Justice

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