Federal judge who called Supreme Court justice ‘dumb’ now issues apology

A federal judge has apologized after an investigation determined an opinion piece he wrote and allowed to be published that called Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito “dumb” violated judicial ethics rules.

The apology is from Michael Ponsor, of the district of Massachusetts.

It got started when the New York Times said it got a photograph of an upside-down flag at Alito’s home in Virginia just days after the protest-turned-riot at the U.S. Capitol in 2021.

The comments claimed the inverted flag signaled support for claims by President Donald Trump about problems in the election.

Legacy media continues to describe those claims as “unsupported,” although there now is evidence that the election was skewed by undue influences, including Mark Zuckerberg’s handout of $400 million plus to leftist election officials who often recruited voters in Democrat districts and the FBI’s decision to interfere by telling media groups to suppress truthful, but damaging, information about the Biden family scandals.

Alito had told the newspaper he had “no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag.” And said, “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.”

The ethics complaint had been filed by the Article II Project and now has been sustained by Chief Judge Albert Diaz.

Ponsor had criticized Alito personally but did much more, Diaz found.

“The essay expressed personal opinions on controversial public issues and criticized the ethics of a sitting Supreme Court justice. Such comments diminish the public confidence in the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary in violation of Canons 1 and 2A. Viewed in the timeframe during which the essay was published, including the substantial press coverage detailing the calls for Justice Alito’s recusals from the then-pending January 6 cases, it would be reasonable for a member of the public to perceive the essay as a commentary on partisan issues and as a call for Justice Alito’s recusal,” Diaz wrote.

A3P said it filed the complaint in order to protect the integrity of the judiciary and ensure that judges avoid any appearance of partisanship.

According to Law & Crime, Ponsor delivered an “unreserved apology” for his comments.

Diaz’s order said that Ponsor’s letter constituted “voluntary corrective action sufficient to allow for the conclusion of the complaint.”

The Washington Examiner said Ponsor’s criticisms of Alito aligned with criticisms also coming from Democrats at the time.

They claimed flying an upside-down American flag outside his home in Virginia and a Revolutionary War-era “Appeal to Heaven” flag outside his beach home showed a bias.

Ponsor, a Bill Clinton appointee, had blamed Alito for the flags, and said they were “improper.”

He accused Alito of hurting the high court.

“You just don’t do that sort of thing, whether it may be considered over the line, or just edging up to the margin. Flying those flags was tantamount to sticking a ‘Stop the steal’ bumper sticker on your car. You just don’t do it,” he claimed.

The Ponsor essay, according to the complaint that was filed, was “highly inappropriate, baseless, and prejudicial political speech by a judge against another judge while he is deciding the legal fates of criminal defendants going through the judicial process.”