re: #168 allegro

If Clarence Thomas should recuse himself over interests his wife holds, then sure based on an apparent conflict of interest the gay judge should have recused himself. My actual opinion is neither should. What I observe is some who are anxious to suspect conservative decisions, and unlikely to question progressive rulings. When anyone calls for a recusal they should read & cite the actual legal standard rather than guessing the standard applies to their wishes on outcomes.

See one way to pressure the judicial branch is with standards of conduct that blow around with the political winds. I object to that.
So from the link above at Wiki
The judge is related to a party, attorney, or spouse of either party (usually) within three degrees of kinship.
The judge is a party.
The judge is a material witness unless pleading purporting to make the Judge a party is false (determined by presiding judge, but see Substitution (law)).
The judge has previously acted in the case in question as an attorney for a party, or participated in some other capacity.
The judge prepared any legal instrument (such as a contract or will) whose validity or construction is at issue.
Appellate judge previously handled case as a trial judge.
The judge has personal or financial interest in the outcome. This particular ground varies by jurisdiction. Some require recusal if there is any interest at all in the outcome, while others only require recusal if there is interest beyond a certain value.
The judge determines he or she cannot act impartially.