(Photo
by
Alex
Wong/Getty
Images)
A
federal
judge
has
been
found
to
have
engaged
in
“conduct
prejudicial
to
the
effective
and
expeditious
administration
of
the
business
of
the
courts”
for
pointing
out
that
Supreme
Court
justice
Sir
Samuel
Alito
the
Aggrieved…
engaged
in
conduct
prejudicial
to
the
effective
and
expeditious
administration
of
the
business
of
the
courts.
This
Kafka-inspired
result
forms
the
basis
of
an
opinion
issued
last
week
rebuking
District
Judge
Michael
Ponsor
pursuant
to
28
U.S.C.
§
351-364.
When
reports
surfaced
that
Sam
Alito
flew
insurrection-friendly
flags,
Judge
Ponsor
wrote
a
piece
in
the
New
York
Times
flagging
such
behavior
as
“improper…
And
dumb”
for
any
reasonable
federal
judge
to
signal
support
for
a
political
conspiracy
theory.
That
Alito
followed
up
on
the
revelations
about
his
“Stop
the
Steal”
flag
by
refusing
to
recuse
himself
from
a
case
based
on
the
fictional
“Steal”
deeply
prejudiced
the
effective
and
expeditious
administration
of
the
business
of
the
courts.
Because
the
Supreme
Court
famously
takes
the
position
that
it
is
exempt
from
all
judicial
ethics
rules,
so
by
extension,
they
cannot
improperly
undermine
faith
in
the
courts…
and
anyone
pointing
out
what
they’ve
done
is
the
REAL
culprit
undermining
confidence
in
the
courts.
The
greater
crime
remains
pointing
out
that
emperor
wears
no
clothes.
Which
goes
a
long
way
toward
explaining
why
America’s
faith
in
the
courts
exists
in
the
same
company
as
the
courts
of
Myanmar
and
Syria.
After
Ponsor’s
article,
the
Article
III
Project
filed
a
third
party
ethics
complaint
against
Ponsor.
By
way
of
context,
the
Article
III
Project
is
a
right-wing
advocacy
group
founded
by
Mike
Davis
who
you
might
remember
as
the
guy
who
thinks
judicial
nominees
shouldn’t
have
to
commit
to
upholding
Brown
v.
Board
and
thinks
it’s
time
for
Americans
to
“arm
up”
against
the
“Black
underclass.”
Ponsor
has
actually
spoken
frankly
about
the
damage
justices
on
both
sides
have
done
to
judicial
credibility
for
their
actions
in
violation
of
at
least
the
mandate
to
avoid
the
appearance
of
impropriety
and
at
worst
breaches
of
the
ethical
rules
that
apply
to
the
rest
of
the
judiciary.
But
apparently
the
Article
III
Project
wasn’t
as
incensed
when
Ponsor
called
out
Sotomayor’s
ethical
problems.
Fourth
Circuit
Chief
Judge
Albert
Diaz
heard
the
matter
and
issued
an
opinion
last
week.
Although
Judge
Ponsor
“is
in
a
unique
position
to
contribute
to
the
law,”
Canon
4
cmt.,
and
“may
.
.
.
write
on
substantive
legal
issues,”
Advisory
Op.
No.
93,
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.
See
Canon
1
cmt.
(“Deference
to
the
judgments
and
rulings
of
courts
depends
on
public
confidence
in
the
integrity
and
independence
of
judges.”).
A
more
reasonable
system
might
conclude
that
the
judge
openly
flying
the
sigil
of
a
coup
actually
did
all
the
damage
to
the
“confidence
in
the
integrity
and
independence
of
the
federal
judiciary,”
but,
again,
the
Supreme
Court
doesn’t
abide
by
any
rules.
But
Diaz
couldn’t
opine
on
the
truth
of
the
matter,
he
could
only
conclude
that
fellow
judges
can’t
publicly
call
out
ethical
lapses
by
Supreme
Court
justices.
No
matter
how
egregious.
Not
for
nothing,
but
this
complaint
got
resolved…
really
fast.
Judge
Kindred’s
behavior
was
particularly
horrifying.
Judge
Roger
Benitez
terrorized
a
13-year-old
girl
and
the
courts
took
14
months
to
decide
that
this
was
wrong.
Perhaps
Judge
Diaz
just
takes
these
matters
more
seriously
than
other
judges,
but
it
sends
the
distinct
impression
that
rape
and
abusing
a
child
aren’t
nearly
as
much
of
a
priority
as
vindicating
a
Supreme
Court
justice’s
right
to
avoid
criticism.
As
penalty
for
his
transgression,
Judge
Ponsor
had
to
write
an
apology
letter
to
Judge
Diaz.
As
he
put
it
in
his
conclusion:
I
am
proud
to
participate
in
a
judicial
system
that
gives
members
of
the
public
an
avenue
to
identify
potential
violations
of
the
Code
and
that
gives
me
an
opportunity
to
recognize
any
misstep,
apologize,
and
amend.
Please
accept
my
thanks
for
your
very
helpful
guidance.
I
don’t
think
Judge
Ponsor
meant
this,
but
this
passage
highlights
the
big
problem
here.
There
actually
is
a
Code
and
an
avenue
to
identify
violations
of
that
Code
available
when
it
comes
to
lower
court
judges.
But
for
the
Supreme
Court
there
is
no
Code
and
no
avenue.
There
is
no
recognition
of
any
misstep,
apology,
and
amendment.
And
if
someone’s
worried
about
the
plummeting
faith
in
America’s
courts…
the
problem
is
a
lot
higher
up
than
a
District
Judge
in
Massachusetts.
(Opinion
on
the
next
page…)
Earlier:
Federal
Judge
Absolutely
NAILS
Supreme
Court’s
Ethics
Dumpster
Fire
Federal
Judge
Rebukes
Alito’s
Flag
Antics
As
‘Improper’
And
‘Dumb’
Plummeting
Faith
In
American
Courts
Among
10
Largest
Declines
Worldwide
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.