I don't owe him an apology. I am a physicist, and my field of expertise is foundations of quantum mechanics. I did not say that this idea is insane as a knee-jerk reaction. I have read his paper, and I've been to a presentation by the men himself.
I find superdeterminism isane because it is too strong a hyphotesis: it can explain any experimental result. It is, therefore, incompatible with the very idea of doing science. Let me give you an example. Suppose that you want to measure some property of a particle, say, the polarization of a photon. In a superdeterministic theory, the photon's state could depend on which basis you chose to do the measurement, so you could conclude nothing at all from the result. Even the idea the a particle has some property independ of your choice of measurement does not apply.
And it's also deeply troubling how he arrived at superdeterminism. He wanted to do a deterministic model of quantum theory, but there is these pesky Bell inequalities tell you it's impossible. So what does he do? Simply assumes superdeterminism to brush off the issue.
It's not as if he was building a superdeterministic model per se, it is just an ad hoc hyphotesis that he added to get rid of Bell inequalities.