A Supreme Court case decided over a decade ago may come back to haunt Judge Amy Coney Barrett

[FBaggins]

7. The problem is that the example is a judge who ran for reelection

Such judges usually have to run again and you could reasonably assume that they'll need to raise more money and might be biased toward those who donated large amounts previously.

That's substantively different from saying that a judge can't be impartial in cases involving the executive that appointed them. Once a justice is on the bench, that person no longer has any power over them. That's one of the reasons that the founders made these seats lifetime appointments.

Not only would there be FAR more recusals, but history doesn't indicate that it's a problem. Lots of judges have ruled against the people who appointed them.