Clarence Thomas, God, and the Constitution

There is a report that Justice Clarence Thomas told a new Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court that "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."  (Hat tip: Ignatz, via Atrios.)

If this is true, and if it is an accurate reflection of the way Thomas sees his job -- and those are both big ifs (see update below) -- it's very worrisome.  Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says that all federal and state judicial officers "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."  It says nothing about taking an oath to God -- quite the contrary, it says that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."  In fact, the only oath whose text is set forth in the Constitution -- the oath that the President must take -- is, in full, as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Notice that there's not even a "so help me God" there?  George Washington added those four words on his own, and most Presidents since have used them as well, but they're not in the Constitution.

So the Constitution itself is pretty clear on this: if you're going to hold office under the Constitution of the United States, your duty must be to that Constitution, first, last, and always.  The Constitution doesn't care whether or not you believe in God (an atheist who will support the Constitution is fully qualified to sit as a judge, and some famous judges are indeed atheists), or whether or not you intend to devote your life to carrying out God's will.  But if you believe that your role as an instrument of God's will might at times conflict with your duty to support the Constitution, and if in the event of such a conflict you would choose God's will over the Constitution, then you should not sit as a judge, because you are unable to carry out your oath of office.

This is why Thomas's alleged comment is so problematic: it sets up the possibility of a judge's duty to God conflicting with his duty "to the people, to the state or to the Constitution," and it seems to conclude that the correct choice for the judge to make in the event of such a conflict is to go with the duty to God.  That seems inconsistent with the oath of office that every federal and state judge must take.  So did Thomas really say what the news report says he said?  And if he said it, did he mean it the way it sounds, or was he just making an offhand comment that could have been interpreted differently?  I have emailed the reporter and I hope that he can provide some additional information.

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Justice Parker's prepared remarks at his investiture, in which he relates Justice Thomas's comments, are here, and you can listen to Parker's actual speech here.  My transcription of the relevant portion of Parker's recorded speech (at about 3:30 of the tape) is as follows:

Just moments before I placed my hand on the Holy Scripture, Justice Thomas soberly addressed me and those in attendance.  He admonished us to remember that the worth of a justice should be evaluated by one thing, and by one thing alone: whether or not he is faithful to uphold his oath - an oath which as Justice Thomas pointed out is not to the people; it's not to the state; it's not even to the Constitution, which is sworn to be supported, but it is an oath which is to God Himself.

Interestingly, the clause "which is sworn to be supported" does not appear in the prepared remarks as reprinted on Parker's website -- apparently Parker ad-libbed it in his speech. 

We do not know, of course, whether Justice Parker's recollection of Thomas's remarks is accurate (although he sounds pretty confident in his speech).  If it is, it seems that (1) Thomas's remarks were not offhand conversation, but rather were delivered to an audience; and (2) his remarks were quite specific about the nature of a judge's duties and to whom the judge's ultimate obligation is owed.  We report, you decide.

FURTHER UPDATE: Upon reflection and some thoughtful comments from colleagues, I agree that a reasonable interpretation of Justice Thomas's actual remarks (as reported by Justice Parker and transcribed above) is that the oath to support the Constitution is an oath sworn before God, and is therefore especially important.  If Thomas indeed said that a judge's oath is not an oath "to the Constitution," that was perhaps a poor choice of words -- to me, asking for God's assistance ("so help me God") in carrying out the secular duty of supporting the Constitution is not the same as swearing an oath "to God Himself."  Nonetheless, the words are both second-hand and sufficiently ambiguous that Thomas is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.