Besides, on a case that sharply and closely divided, there's always the chance that the Court will overrule the Kelo case. In either event, a potential Justice who expressed the opinion that he/she would uphold/reverse Kelo, would disqualify that Justice from serving on that future case.
Trust me, it's a huge no-no.
John / Billybob
My point is that there is a difference between answering a question regarding a hypothetical case (or a real one) which might reach the court in the future versus expressing an opinion in agreement with the dissent in a case already decided. We have over two hundred years of precedent by prior Supreme Court decisions. Is it the case that no opinion can be stated regarding the correctness of any such decisions without being bound to recuse oneself in a similar case?
The Dred Scott decision was a federal affirmation of the power to return a slave to his owner in a slave state. Is that decison out-of-bounds for comment? The issue of ownership of "property" having crossed state lines is still liable to come up.
From a practical point-of-view I can see where an appointee might use the claim that he wishes to avoid a future obligation to recuse in refusing to answer a question. Isn't a Supreme Court Justice the final arbiter of when he must recuse, short of impeachment? Are there any examples of a Justice recusing on the basis of opinions stated during confirmation, apart from some actual conflict-of-interest or prior direct involvement in a case?
And finally, thanks for taking your time to respond. My future degree from UFR (the University of FreeRepublic) will be highly prized.