Whether a judge must be disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 455 if the judge makes rulings more restrictive against one party than the other in comparable situations

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal's criticism regarding the infamous Chicago 7 trial includes that “in comparable situations, the judge was more likely to exercise his discretion against the defense than against the government.”; and “the court made rulings which were, comparatively, more restrictive against the defense than the government.” Since the time of that . trial, in the 1970s, American jurisprudence, including 28 U.S.C. § 455 in 1974, adopted an objective standard of recusal. Given such history, if a judge makes rulings more restrictive against one party than the other in comparable situations, does such judge must be disqualified under 28 U.S.C. § 455? 2. Ifa judge makes rulings more restrictive against pro se party than attorneys in comparable situations, does it aggravate the level of favoritism enough to require the judge's recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 and grant of mandamus appeal? 8. When a party reasonably has brought errors to the attention of a judge, if the judge reacts as certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), instead of correcting the errors, does it demonstrate that the judge took it as a personal attack and display the . judge's inability to render fair judgment, which requires recusal?