[republicofdavis]

I simply think that it's wrong for judges to announce in advance their political opinions and what would be their legal opinions, on cases that will come before them in the future. For example, if a judge said "I will always think that it's unconstitutional for a public display of religion to occur on any public grounds" I would think that judge should be disqualified, not because their legal analysis is wrong (which it would be) but because they would have shown that they were not willing to view each case on its merits, that they didn't have what it takes to be a "judge."

You obviously disagree. I guess we'll see what the future holds.

[LisaFab]

Right. Remember when Scalia had to recuse himself from one of the Ten Commandments cases because he was on record with a public statement?

[TomasUSMC]

For example, if a judge said "I will always think that it's unconstitutional for a public display of religion to occur on any public grounds" I would think that judge should be disqualified, not because their legal analysis is wrong (which it would be) but because they would have shown that they were not willing to view each case on its merits, that they didn't have what it takes to be a "judge."

---

The fact that a judge has a previously held opinion on something that is brought up to him should not mean that he is incapable of rendering just proceedings. What about a murder case? Most judges will have previous opinions on murder but will hear the case anyway. Why? Because they are not going to let their opinions affect their job as judge.

I especially dislike Judge Roberts mentioning past liberal nominees and citing their refusal to answer questions as the reason he won't. Geez, we are better than the left, we shouldn't being using their excuses. Come on Judge Roberts, DEFEND LIFE!