But on what grounds? Because he he has his own idea of the definition of natural born citizen? That's not grounds for recusal.
He probably answered the question the way he did because he didn't want to be bothered by someone like Klayman.
No. It’s standard practice not to comment on issues that might potentially come before the Court. If you’ve prejudged the issue, then a colorable argument, at least, can be made that you’re biased. That is why Supreme Court nominees refuse to comment in Congressional confirmation proceedings on issues that have even a remote chance of coming before the Court. What’s interesting to me is that he did dodge the question, which suggests that he thinks it might come before the Court.