If you ask lawyers (and I have done so) then they say that the reason judges rule on their own recusal is because otherwise every trial would get interrupted for a trip to appeals court to decide on whether a recusal is appropriate. The existing system allows an appeals court to decide AFTERWARD whether the recusal decision was appropriate (although the judge is given a great deal of latitude and only egregious cases would be overruled). They can then order a new trial.
I am not sure I agree with this: it seems to me that a quick ruling could be made on recusal and that it would arise quite rarely. But I'm not familiar with the system, and the lawyers I have heard from are. I suppose if judges are nearly always making good choices about when to recuse themselves the system should work fairly well.
> (although the judge is given a great deal of latitude and only egregious cases would be overruled)
This does depend on where you are, different jurisdictions will draw the line in very different places. E.g. England has particularly strict rules on bias and the appearance of bias in judges: in a famous recent case, Augusto Pinochet successfully got a ruling that he could be extradited to Spain overturned, because one of the judges on the five judge panel (Lord Hoffmann) was a director of a charitable trust linked to a body (Amnesty International) that had submitted an amicus brief in the case.[1]
(Not that it did Pinochet much good, since a differently constituted court later came to the same conclusion as the original one).
You are correct. In my jurisdiction (the US), judges have complete, 100% immunity for actions they take in their capacity as a judge. Deciding wrongly is NOT something a judge can be prosecuted for. There are a lot of reasons why this is a good thing and in egregious cases there is usually a different reason that can be found. (Like the judge in my state convicted of sending kids to private jails just in order to receive kickbacks. He could NOT be prosecuted for the decisions he made. But he was successfully prosecuted for accepting bribes and kickbacks.)
I am not sure I agree with this: it seems to me that a quick ruling could be made on recusal and that it would arise quite rarely. But I'm not familiar with the system, and the lawyers I have heard from are. I suppose if judges are nearly always making good choices about when to recuse themselves the system should work fairly well.