Also

* [Trump v. Hawaii](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii) with Trump-nominated [Neil Gorsuch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch) (not recusing).

* In [United States v. Nixon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon) however "Justice [William Rehnquist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist) recused himself as he had previously served in the Nixon administration as an Assistant Attorney General". Rehnquist was also Nixon-nominated to the Supreme Court, but he didn't include in his recusal the latter reason. The same Court also had Nixon-nominated justices [Harry Blackmun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Blackmun) and [Lewis F. Powell Jr.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell_Jr.) on board, neither of whom recused, and even the Chief Justice of that court, [Warren Burger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_E._Burger), had been nominated by Nixon himself.

I think the fact that there is a Senate confirmation for Supreme Justices makes the nomination remote enough not to be a reason for recusal. I'm  not sure anyone has argued it explicitly along these lines though.

One pretty long [review paper](https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3585&context=hastings_law_journal) on recusals argues that 

> A more demanding recusal standard is possible at the
lower federal court levels precisely because recourse is available--other
judges are available to be substituted. At the Supreme Court level,
however, precluding Justices from hearing cases for purely remote
precautionary reasons, and thereby silencing important voices in the
decision-making process, is impolitic, unwise, and counterproductive.

and 

> If, indeed, "the judgments that the President and the Senate are
supposed to reach in the nomination and confirmation processes are
essentially political judgments-in both the highest and lowest senses of
that term," then Supreme Court Justices have, in fact, been selected
because they hold particular biases. Having appointed a particular
individual based on that person's ideology (and political connections)
renders recusal due to bias as to those ideological issues incongruent.

Also

> What are the consequences when a Supreme Court Justice
disregards the statutory proscriptions? The Justice will not be subject to a
disciplinary hearing; the only real remedy would appear to be
impeachment.

Speaking of which there was at least one Supreme Justice, [Abe Fortas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Fortas#Ethics_scandal_and_resignation), who resigned under threat of impeachment (during Nixon's presidency). Although Fortas was accused of some conflicts of interest, these didn't involve the president.