No, it’s a direct conflict of interest.
When has Kagan or Sotomayor or Kagan sat in judgment of the person who appointed her?
Name another time when this has happened.
“ No, it’s a direct conflict of interest.”
Actually, it’s not. As she is a federal judge, she is appointed for life. So there is nothing that Trump could offer her or threaten her with to influence her decisions. Unless you can point to a clear benefit or harm that would come to her as a result of her decisions based on her being appointed by Trump, there is no conflict. You just think it creates an appearance of a conflict, and many might agree and many would disagree. Under your interpretation, judges could not rule on any case involving the person who nominated them. Thus, Justice Jackson would have to recuse from any case brought against the Biden Admin, etc.
You are an average person and I don’t mean that as in insult. I mean it in the sense that to you this is cut and dry conflict of interest. But that is not how it works. No offense but look up the statutes. It is not a bright line much less as specific as “ no judge may rule in a case where the person that appointed them appears.” The rule is that IF a conflict renders a judge incapable of rendering their independent professional judgment then they must recuse. Judges preside over all kinds of cases where there are potential conflicts. This is because they deem that they are capable of remaining impartial. Sotomayor , Kagan, Ginsberg, Alito, Thomas have all heard cases where the average people on both sides cry conflict. But they still hear the cases and the verdict stands because the judges make the call.