Imagine how ethically and intellectually bankrupt you have to be to note that publicizing something you do undermines public trust in your office, then conclude not that you’re wrong to do it, but that other people are wrong to publicize it.

“The fact that I did not have any particular case in mind when I drafted the piece does not reduce the gravity of my lapse,” he said.

Ponsor, who has authored several mystery novels, said that going forward, he would seek advice from a judicial panel before contemplating any public, nonjudicial writing.

No. Double down. Say, “The Supreme Court doesn’t need my help to have its integrity undermound. I meant what I said, and if you’d like to have the American judiciary further undermine itself by removing judges for telling the truth, I’d consider it a great honor and privilege if you would start with me. If not, then take your requests for authoritarian fiction back home, and stop making stupid requests. For the time being, this is America, where we can say what we want to say.”

Yeah, telling your superior to obey obvious ethical standards undermines their authority.

How dare he expect the highest court in the country abide by the same standards as the rest of the judiciary; doesn’t he know who they are??

Pointing out a lack of ethics is unethical.

This ruling alone does more to diminish the integrity of the justice system than any 1000 judges criticizing a SC justice’s lack of ethics. It is ethical to criticize a lack of ethics.

This is not a good sign of things to come

Need to publish using a pseudonym, like they did in the 1770s.

Highest court in the land, and the best they can muster is a “No, U”