Agreed, they do not give advisory opinions...ever.
I should know better than to jump into this discussion, but... Isn't recusal, or not, an ethical consideration rather than a legal one?
We know that many involved is the witch hunt have conflicts of interest and ethical conflicts, but who have chosen not to recuse themselves (Mueller, Rosenstein, and most of Mueller's staff of lawyers, etc.)
We often see discussions of what SCOTUS judge, or other court judge should recuse themselves from a case, but they almost never do.
Could it be a SCOTUS judge might give a personal opinion on an ethical question, which seems to be a decision only for the individual with the potential conflict of interest?
Correct.
“The United States Supreme Court has determined that the case or controversy requirement found in Article Three of the United States Constitution prohibits United States federal courts from issuing advisory opinions. Accordingly, before the court will hear a case, it must find that the parties have a tangible interest at stake in the matter, the issue presented must be “mature for judicial resolution” or ripe, and a justiciable issue must remain before the court throughout the course of the lawsuit.”