[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.

[TomasUSMC]

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.
======
Judge Scalia didn't have to recuse himself. Just as he has refused to recuse himself from the Cheney case because he went hunting with him he should have refused to recuse himself then.

Once a judge starts recusing himself, all the attorney will get after him to recuse himself for something or other. If your going to be a judge you shouldn't have to recuse yourself for previous held beliefs. That is what the lawyers are there for, to change your mind. Judge Roberts should have defended the Pro-Life Cause, instead of hiding behind the excuses of left wing liberal judges of the past.

If I can't trust him to stand up for LIFE in front of demonrat senators today, he doesn't deserve to be trusted to stand up later.