Monday, January 17, 2005

Secular, Shmecular

“I, Clarence Thomas, do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Justice of the United States Supreme Court under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” -- 28 U.S.C. §453

That is the oath of office that Clarence Thomas took upon ascending to the United States Supreme Court, after indicating that he while he loved porn, he should not talk about it at the office anymore. Something you would expect a guy who headed the EEOC to know anyhow, but apparently something that would not keep you off the Supreme Court.

Thurgood Marshall used to go up against bigots in high places and lynch mobs in low ones by playing the justice card. Clarence "bravely" stared down the a handful of Senators by playing the race card.

Thousands of courts and everyday people use the court system daily and take an oath; office holders, take oaths. The ultimate arbiters of the value of these oaths, of seeing to their value, is the United States Supreme Court. Thomas, as a Justice of the United States Supreme Court took an oath that...I will administer justice...under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Thanks to a great find by Sam at (The Return of) Ignatz, we discover that he went off to Alabama to speak before a group of judges and said this...

"a judge should be evaluated by whether he faithfully upholds his oath to God, not to the people, to the state or to the Constitution."


it is, to put it mildly, an indication he could give a shit about that oath he took. Unless you are a resident of Little Green Snotbubbles, I would think others should be troubled as well. But, of course, we've all picked our teams now haven't we...including the establishment, party invite desiring SCLM, so most will never hear about, let alone refused to be outraged.

UPDATE: Atrios informs us it is a little more ambiguous than reported originally.

No comments: