Should a Justice with an established record in favor of affirmative action disqualify himself from participating in a Michigan Supreme Court decision regarding the use of racial preferences in university admissions?

I believe the Michigan Supreme Court Justice should not disqualify himself participating in the Michigan Supreme Court case because the justice has a right to his own opinion. I feel very strongly about this issue for several reasons.

The Core Democratic Value that supports my position is Liberty. Liberty means that a person has the freedom to act, think, and believe as he or she wants. Liberty implies that the justice has the right to give his own opinion on the case. According to this Core Democratic Value I see no reason why the justice cannot participate in this case.

From research I have learned that, "any justice or judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any case in which he has a substantial interest, has been of counsel, is or has been a material witness, or is so related ... to sit on the trial, appeal, or other proceeding therein." Laird v. Tatum, 409 U.S. 824,825(1972)(memorandum opinion)(quoting 28 U.S.C. 455). This means a justice must disqualify himself if he has a substantial interest in the case, is a witness in the case, has worked as an attorney on the case (before becoming a justice), or is related to the parties or the attorneys. The justice deciding this case is not doing any of the above. Therefore I believe that the justice has the right to participate in the case.

Justice William Rehnquist once said in the 1972 Laird v. Tatum case:

"... neither the oath, the disqualification statute, nor the practice of the former Justices of this Court guarantee a litigant that each judge will start off from dead center in his willingness or ability to reconcile the opposing arguments of counsel with his under standing of the Constitution and the law. That being the case, it is not a ground for disqualification that a judge has prior to his nomination expressed his then understanding of the meaning of some particular provision of the Constitution " Id. at 838-39.
This quote clearly states that the justice has a right to express his opinion outside the court and still participate in the case.

In social studies I learned that before becoming a justice he or she must promise to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich" that he "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent" upon him agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. 453(2001). This oath that the justice must take must be followed. Therefore I feel that the judge will be fair.

In conclusion I think that the justices should be allowed to take part in this case and not have to disqualify himself.