Oath of The Supremes

Posted on 27 May 2009 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The Constitution does not give any details about the Oath of Office to be taken by Justices of the Supreme Court.  

Article 6 covers oath:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

But we find in United States Code (Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453) the oath Justice of the SCOTUS:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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 [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

"Without respect to persons…."

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Comments

  1. Jeff Pinyan says:
    27 May 2009 at 6:03 PM

    Is that oath on “Where Did Our Love Go?”, the same album as “Baby Love”?

  3. Tominellay says:
    27 May 2009 at 6:32 PM

    …in this country one’s title or nobility should get him nowhere in a court of law…

  4. Anita Moore OPL says:
    27 May 2009 at 10:11 PM

    …in this country one’s title or nobility should get him nowhere in a court of law…

    We don’t have titles of nobility in the United States (cf. Article I, Section 9, U.S. Constitution).

    Of course, this constitutional provision, like so many others, is now a dead letter in a world where so many of us seek Victim Status, and where anybody who is perceived to be a Victim gets special treatment by the government, contrary to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

  5. John 6:54 says:
    28 May 2009 at 7:06 AM

    …shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.

    …support the Constitution? You mean its not to make policy?

    Is an Oath too much for some people, that they can do an Affirmation? Shouldn’t they have to choose one so we know which word they are operating under?

  6. Maureen says:
    28 May 2009 at 7:46 AM

    Re: oath or affirmation

    All you have to do is listen to what the person says. If he says, “I swear”, it’s an oath. If he says, “I affirm”, it’s not an oath. Simple.

    While I sympathize with your support of the Indo-European system of law that’s based on oath, this isn’t something new or non-Christian. It’s a salve to the consciences of those of our separated brethren who believe that “let your yes mean yes… swear not at all” means “don’t take oaths at all” instead of “don’t swear vain oaths”.

  7. TerryC says:
    28 May 2009 at 1:57 PM

    “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread.” — Anatole France

Comments are closed.