With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was filed on behalf of the Committee on Cameras in the Courtroom, Minnesota District Judges Association, requesting this court as a whole to remove Chief Justice Peter S. Popovich from participation in connection with a pending petition for modification of Canon 3A(7), Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court declines to rule on the motion to remove one of its members from participation in a pending proceeding and refers it to Chief Justice Popovich for his individual decision. MEMORANDUM It has long been the practice of this court to honor decisions of its individual members as to whether to participate in a pending proceeding. See State ex rel. Wild v. Otis, 257 N.W.2d 361 (Minn.1977) cert. denied 434 U.S. 1003, 98 S.Ct. 707, 54 L.Ed.2d 746 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we have declined to rule on this

A: holding that the doctrine of legislative immunity did not bar prospective  injunctive relief against the chief justice of the virginia supreme court insofar as he was acting to enforce rather than legislate disciplinary rules
B: holding that where the supreme court has expressly left an open question circuit precedent is immaterial and there is no clearly established law for the state court to have unreasonably applied
C: holding that an alleged failure of the district court to reduce a sentence did not work a miscarriage of justice sufficient to make an appellate waiver unenforceable
D: holding that the question of recusal of a supreme court justice is to be left to the individual justice
D.