Does a self-evaluative review by a state court justice challenged for disqualification deny the due process right to a fair hearing under the Fourteenth Amendment?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Right to Fair Hearing and Guarantees Clause, Article IV, Sec. 4: 1. Does a self-evaluative review applying no objective standards under Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) by a Justice(s) on the state’s highest court challenged for disqualification deny the basic due process right to a fair hearing under the Fourteenth Amendment when the Justice(s) participated in the consideration of this case involving the constitutionality of the Illinois Assault Weapons Partial Ban! given the 2.6 Million Dollars disproportionate campaign contributions at the immediately preceding election from Defendants, leaders of the legislative and executive branches, directly to the campaign funds for the Justices, shared publicly represented commitment with Defendants to ban assault weapons when the General Assembly convened after the election, and when the issues in the case required the Court to judicially review the constitutionality of the process Defendants employed to enact the assault weapon ban? 2. Does a litigant’s basic due process right to a fair hearing before the judiciary, including the appearance of a fair hearing, under the Fourteenth Amendment and the public’s interest in the appearance of an independent judiciary prevail over any First Amendment ! As hereafter defined. li QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued right of the leaders of the executive and/or legislative branches to contribute to a judicial campaign or judicial candidates right to accept campaign contributions and announce positions on issues likely to present before them to have required recusal under the circumstances? 3. Does the acceptance of disproportionately large campaign contributions from the leaders of the executive or legislative branches of government dilute the independence of a judiciary serially abdicating the constitutional function to check constitutional abuse by other branches respecting constitutional procedures to enact a valid law to such extent to present an existential threat to the form of republican government to which the citizens consented to invoke justiciable relief under the Guarantees Clause, Article IV, Section 4. Second Amendment and Equal Protection: The Assault Weapons Partial Ban criminalized of firearms based on categories that classified firearms (“assault weapons” vs. other bearable arms) and classified persons across numerous groupings which for purposes of this Petition will focus on provisions that prohibit assault weapons to some in their home unavailable for self-defense and allow assault weapons for others in their home available for self-defense (“grand-fathered”) with prohibited and grandfathered distinguished only by date of iii QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued acquisition of the assault weapon and not by any differences between the grandfathered and prohibited posing a serious risk of harm to themselves or others. 1. Does the classification of grandfathered persons immunized from criminal penalty and allowed to keep assault weapons for use in defense of home under the Assault Weapons Partial Ban confess, if not codify, that the assault weapons are bearable arms in common use (and would remain so) so as to render the prohibition of said assault weapons to any citizen entitled to keep and bear arms in defense of home unconstitutional under the Second Amendment? 2. Ifa classification of weapons is assumed constitutional, must the classification of persons be supported by the historical tradition of firearm regulation or comport with equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment? 3. Does the disparate treatment of similarly situated ordinary law-abiding citizens relative to the possession of assault weapons in the home based on the date an assault weapon was acquired comport with equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment?