The facts: (a) A right-wing politician makes an indecent proposal in the National Review regarding the Supreme Court. (b) An intellectual judge, responding to this silly proposal, then calls out the politician on his personal blog–a wonderful blog, by the way, called “Hercules and the Umpire“–opining that the politician is “demonstrably unfit to become President.” (c) A right-wing law professor, in turn, chimes in, “surreplying” to the judge on a right-wing legal blog (The Volokh Conspiracy), accusing our friend the judge of violating Canon 5 of the Judicial Code of Conduct, which prohibits judges from “publicly endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office.” So, what’s the remedy here? Admonition? (Boring.) In any case, to the extent the act of voting (like the act of blogging or talking) is a public act, one could argue that Canon 5, taken literally, thus prohibits judges from voting!
prior probability 
“let him that is without sin cast the first stone” and “mercy, justice and faith, these ought you to have done and not to have left the others undone”. There is no mercy, but a foaming of the mouth to find a culprit. No matter how small the infraction the finger pointers love to jump with glee! Then on the other hand there will be a blatant criminal who walks off scot-free. It’s about caring the right way about what REALLY matters.