comment: >
  
  Of course he should recuse himself. I swear there’s no standards anymore. 
  Since there’s a clear reason why he’d be personally grieved by the name, we can’t expect him, or any person in the same position (under the same circumstances) to do the case w/o bias.
  If anyone cares about democracy, this is a no brainer. This is exactly why judges should recuse themselves from a case. One reason anyway.
  EDIT: Even if the name of the place was referring to another Sam elite-o, and everyone knew it, the Sam elite-o on SCOTUS should recuse himself. 
  I’m not sure how it works in these cases, but there’s a clear reason why a person might be biased if their name is in the title of the case.
context: “ The clinic will serve anyone 17 years or older in New Mexico at the time of the visit, and patients must be no more than 11 weeks pregnant, according to the website.
  Services include financial assistance, emotional support, chemical abortions and religious support, as well as contraceptives.”
  Not too shabby. >
  
  This is also genius. When they get into the inevitably lawsuits - and I'll make a considerable donation to boost this - it could conceivably go to SCOTUS.
  How can the dude the place is named for not recuse? >
  
  
  How can the dude the place is named for not recuse?
  
  I don't think he has to, an antagonistic name isn't like a get out of supreme court free card.
  Like if Florida made a "Sotomayor book ban" that she had nothing to do with, would you expect her to recuse herself and let the other justices continue their agenda?
  I completely support the satanic temple's work and cheekiness here, but I don't think a cute loophole in having the whole supreme court interpret the constitution is going to work out well for anyone.
  Besides, I'm not sure I see a supreme-court worthy case here. They're following state abortion law which is what the supreme court just ruled.