[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.

[WoodstockCat]

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

OK. your NO vote is so noted. next!

[SE Mom]

Sir, I have read your comments with interest. It seems there is likely not an actual human being (flawed as we are) who could muster up to your standards.

[republicofdavis]

"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."

You use as evidence that he didn't have to recuse himself a case in which he refused to recuse himself. Yet in the former case he did recuse himself.

Can't say your logic is very sound there.

"If your going to be a judge you shouldn't have to recuse yourself for previous held beliefs."

No one says you shouldn't have beliefs. The question is whether you will unfairly prejudge cases. Do you think a trial court judge who admitted that she would always throw out death verdicts in death penalty cases because of her personal beliefs should be put on the bench. Or would you think that such prejudgment would be impermissible?