[Delhi Rebels]

Both. I think he believes (correctly) that if he answers the question then there will be those who say he can’t be objective in participating in the case and that ultimately he will have no choice but to disqualify himself.

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.

[Brilliant]

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.