the statute:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States **shall** disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He **shall** also disqualify himself in the following
circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a
party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
The purpose of the statute mandating recusal is to assure the rest of us of the impartiality of the justices.
I suppose this justice believes the question turns on the meaning of the word “shall.”
A scofflaw US Supreme Court Justice, mmm mmmm mmm.
Maybe she's biologically unable to disqualify himself.
Well there’s the problem, it says “He”. She’s immune to laws.