Granite thus assumed "an advocacy role" "almost akin to Granite entering a general appearance for the trial court." This "desperate act," they contend, "constitutes nothing but a transparent effort to curry favor with the trial court." Granite's filing, they conclude, "has denied [the Spaffords] any meaningful opportunity to try their case, upon remand, before an impartial and disinterested tribunal within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." A due process challenge is a question of law, which we review for correctness. See Chen v. Stewart, 2004 UT 82, ¶ 25, 100 P.3d 1177. 1 36 To begin with, this case presents nothing remotely approaching a violation of the Due Process Clause. Cf. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 129 S.Ct. 2252, 2256-57, 178 L.Ed.2d 1208 (2009) (<HOLDING>). But see id. at 2272-74 (Roberts, C.J.,
holding that trial court was required to give full effect to supreme courts judgment and that by failing to do so the trial court abused its discretion holding that no federal court other than the supreme court may entertain a proceeding to reverse or modify a judgment of a state court holding that district court opinion which cites controlling authority that is pending review in florida supreme court allows supreme court to exercise jurisdiction holding that due process required disqualification of a state supreme court justice from an appeal where the appellants chairman and president contributed 8 million to that supreme court justices election campaign after a 50 million verdiet was entered in the trial court holding that the question of recusal of a supreme court justice is to be left to the individual justice