[TomasUSMC]

For example, if a judge said "I will always think that it's unconstitutional for a public display of religion to occur on any public grounds" I would think that judge should be disqualified, not because their legal analysis is wrong (which it would be) but because they would have shown that they were not willing to view each case on its merits, that they didn't have what it takes to be a "judge."

---

The fact that a judge has a previously held opinion on something that is brought up to him should not mean that he is incapable of rendering just proceedings. What about a murder case? Most judges will have previous opinions on murder but will hear the case anyway. Why? Because they are not going to let their opinions affect their job as judge.

I especially dislike Judge Roberts mentioning past liberal nominees and citing their refusal to answer questions as the reason he won't. Geez, we are better than the left, we shouldn't being using their excuses. Come on Judge Roberts, DEFEND LIFE!

[San Jacinto]

So you think Roberts should say, "Yes, I've studied Roe v. Wade extensively and find that it is repugnant to the Constitution. I shall see that it is overturned as soon as I am confirmed."

What part of --"It is unethical and improper for a nominee to pre-judge a case that may come before him"--- that you don't understand?

[Reagan Man]

>>>>I especially dislike Judge Roberts mentioning past liberal nominees and citing their refusal to answer questions as the reason he won't. Geez, we are better than the left, we shouldn't being using their excuses. Come on Judge Roberts, DEFEND LIFE!

Touche!

[republicofdavis]

"What about a murder case? Most judges will have previous opinions on murder but will hear the case anyway."

A judge who hears a murder case is a trial judge, not an appellate judge. There is a difference. A trial judge (in a murder trial) is supposed to rule on the individual facts of the case, not on the law in question. An appellate judge does something different, looks at laws, and determines whether the laws violate the Constitution. It's a different task, and your example does not hold water.

Also, it was pointed out by LisaFab that Justice Scalia actually had to recuse himself from participating in a public religion case because he had made comments that gave the appearance that he would pre-judge in that type of case.

What your asking for would result in the same for Roberts.