here's the kicker. the constitution they are "supposed" to take an oath to is titled, "Constitution for the united States of America a.D. 1791". If you start checking oaths you will find they (they meaning so called public servants) take an oath to the "U.S. Constitution". Same one you say? If words have meanings then the answer can only be no. There are over 47 different constitutions published in federal law books. The million dollar question is "Which of the 47 different published constitutions have you taken an oath to, sir?" In addition, you will see most oaths worded, "I swear (or affirm) to support the U.S. Constitution to the best of my ability". BEST OF MY ABILITY? Perhaps my ability isn't too good on Wednesday but it is pretty good on Tuesday. Again, which of the 47 published constitutions are being sworn to? Also, look up the word "constitutor" in a good law dictionary or type it in on google - the answer may surprise you.
It simply is not clear that ANY Supreme Court judge presently sitting has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. If they have not the decisions render are (or should be moot).
If there is assertion that any of the present Justices have been duly sworn, someone needs to provide documented proof. All I can find is that they took the "judicial oath" which does not require support or defense of the constitution. Further, If there is no proof available, and since such an oath (support and defend) is required by the Constitution Article VI, something is sorely wrong with the SCOTUS and all past decisions of the present justices.
http://www.usiap.org/Viewpoints/Zhold/Correspondence/WhatOathTakenBySupremeCourtJustice.html