The Virgin Islands Supreme Court relied on two theories in concluding that Kendall’s opinion was a clear and present danger to the fairness of the Ford case. Neither passes muster. According to the Virgin Islands Supreme Court, Kendall’s opinion was punishable because it “called the very integrity of [its mandamus] decision into question” by “blatantly accusing], without proof, the Justices ... of gross dereliction of their sworn duties and of committing illegal acts.” Yet Kendall’s criticism of the decision to issue mandamus — even if it unfairly impugned the Justices’ motives — is simply not enough. His after-the-fact critique “could not affect [the Justices’] ability to [fairly] decide” how to rule on the petition for a writ of mandamus. Pennekamp, 328 U.S. at 348, 66 S.Ct. 1029 (<HOLDING>). And the Virgin Islands Supreme Court’s
holding that criticism of judicial action already taken even though the cases were still pending on other points or might be revived by rehearings was not enough to satisfy the clearandpresentdanger standard holding that reinstatement is prospective even though it contemplated changing the result of an action  already taken holding that even if the standard for waiver is clear the standard was not met holding that a remand should be limited to cases in which further action must be taken by the district court or in which the appellate court has no way open to it to affirm or reverse the district courts action under review holding the dismissed defendant was not precluded from obtaining its reasonable attorney fees under 1317201 even though the action was still pending against another defendant