A federal judge is on the defense by a Donald Trump ally for publishing a New York Times Op-Ed rebuking Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and saying the upside-down American flag and "Appeal to Heaven" flag placements erode trust.
Mike Davis, the founder of the Article III Project, a collective that works to get conservative judges nominated on the bench, slammed Judge Michael Ponsor, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton in 1993, for “a curiously timed and unprecedented political screed” aimed at Alito.
“Facts, logic, ethics, and good judgment did not dissuade Judge Ponsor a week later when he decided to moonlight as a New York Times guest columnist on Mrs. Alito’s flag-flying past," according to a complaint letter addressed to the Judicial Council of the First Circuit and first published by The New York Post. "Judge Ponsor’s essay goes well beyond the bounds of appropriate judicial speech."
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
ALSO READ: Revealed: Lawmaker who gave J6ers a Capitol tour targets ex-Capitol Police intel head
The "stunning" guest essay that Davis decried in his letter calls into question the ethical capacity of Alito and states that if he were in the same shoes, he would recuse himself from any Supreme Court cases related to Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.
"I would have had to recuse myself from presiding over the case," he writes.
Regarding the hoisting of the Stars and Stripes upside down outside his home in Alexandria, he says Alito was grossly unethical. (Alito blamed his wife as the flagrant flag flyer: "My wife is fond of flying flags. I am not.")
"The fact is that, regardless of its legality, displaying the flag in that way, at that time, shouldn’t have happened," writes Ponsor. "To put it bluntly, any judge with reasonable ethical instincts would have realized immediately that flying the flag then and in that way was improper. And dumb."
He digs into the justice for flying an “Appeal to Heaven” flag at his New Jersey summer home as well.
"Like the upside-down flag, this flag is viewed by a great many people as a banner of allegiance on partisan issues that are or could be before the court," reads the piece. "Courts work because people trust judges. Taking sides in this way erodes that trust."
But Davis argues that Ponsor is talking way out of school and pushing a partisan agenda.
“As Judge Ponsor made no argument grounded in the law, the undisputed facts, or his ethical duties, it is reasonable for one to conclude that he was making a political argument,” the complaint suggests.
“There is zero evidence Mrs. Alito flew these flags related in any way to January 6,” he emphasized. “Judge Ponsor’s essay goes well beyond the bounds of appropriate judicial speech.”