Posted on 01/30/2024 11:46:47 AM PST by Baladas
Retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday arguing that former President Trump is disqualified to run for public office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Luttig, a longtime conservative jurist on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, argued the Supreme Court justices, when they hear arguments next month in the case involving the Colorado Supreme Court decision to bar Trump from the ballot, should take a “textualist” approach to interpreting the constitution.
“The ‘textualist’s touchstone’ is to give every constitutional provision its ‘fair meaning,’” Luttig wrote. “A narrow construction to promote judicial restraint is just as bad as an ‘unreasonably … enlarged’ construction. Scalia and Garner approvingly quote Justice Story that it is forbidden to narrowly construe a constitutional provision ‘as if it were subversive of the great interests of society, or derogated from the inherent sovereignty of the people.’”
“Every provision of the Constitution is part of ‘the supreme Law of the Land,’” he continued, “not the inferior law of the land.”
The friend-of-the-court brief, which included other prominent names such as conservative lawyer George Conway, sought to refute several key arguments from Trump and his allies. Luttig has been among the most high-profile promoters of the case to bar Trump under the 14th amendment, as Colorado and Maine have moved to do.
Having “incited, and therefore engaged in, an armed insurrection” against the Constitution, Luttig wrote, Trump “disqualified himself under Section 3.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Exactly.
Is the military so weak that the US Government can be overthrown by some peaceful protesters without any weapons?
armed ?
cuz there were maga humans with left and right arms ?
bold
face
liars
Remember, Trump has NOT been accused of insurrection in ANY court of law, let alone been convicted. The Democrats, and never Trumpers like this judge appears to be are ignoring that fact and are putting their biased judgement into saying Trump is guilty because they don’t like him. This judge is at heart a Rino.
So we can dismiss Luttig as a liar since there was no incite, no armed and no insurrection.
Just like we saw when the Arizona Republican Honcho Dewitt tried to bribe Kari Lake to not run for Senate, no doubt to reduce Trumps power if he does become President, now comes some other guy (in my opinion) with unlimited money buying Luttig. There’s really no other option to explain why this “conservative” judge is doing this. As an attorney, like an old west gun fighter, he can hire out to anybody and then hide behind attorney-client privledge.
I’ve felt for many years that “people” on both sides are going around the country buying off representatives, Senators and judges. Most likely China is supplying all the money. For 100 grand, I bet Luttig would sell out his own mother.
Once upon a time, some here considered this greaseball to be a hero.
Shows how far we have come in challenging the status quo. :)
Appointed by Papa Bush, so he’s being encouraged by that wing of the party. He hasn’t been a Judge since 2006. After he retired, he went to work as a general counsel for Boeing. It was Luttig and scholar and John Yoo that convinced Pence he didn’t have the authority to reject Biden’s electors. In August of 2023, he and Laurence Tribe wrote an article arguing that Trump is barred from running under the Insurrection Clause (section 3 of the 14th Amendment).
And what does it profit The Hill to publish this report about it?
No, don't answer that. We all know.
It was Luttig and scholar John Yoo, that convinced Pence he didn’t have the authority to reject Biden’s electors.
Keeping Trump off the ballot, as they tried against Lincoln, could very well be a repeat of 1860.
or a thin piano string
“conservative lawyer George Conway”
Hilarious
What’s “conservative” about him?
Reveal who planted the pipe bomb under the Secret Service,FBI and Capitol Police noses and the rest unravels. It is like we know they pulled off fedserection and they know we know but nobody in position to do something will do anything about it.
The DC UniParty MADE MAGA;
If the American Leadership Elite© hadn’t been asleep at the wheel for a couple of generations there would be no need for MAGA.
The judge oughta look in the mirror if he really wants to know who “qualified” Trump for the presidency
Hey Judge A— Hole President Trump has never been indicted or tried for insurrection let alone found guilty of it moron.
Anyone who has read and comprehended Judge Luttig’s court opinions would not call him a RINO.
Here is the source:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/299107/20240129171610494_23-719_Amici%20Brief.pdf
The argument is basically twofold:
#1 it is for the courts to decide whether a candidate is disqualified (starting on p. 3)
#2 that in trying to persuade Republicans in Congress to reject the count of the Electoral Vote, Trump engaged in insurrection (starting on p. 19)
Regarding #1 The amicus does not consider the decision of Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase in Griffin, that defendants in insurrection cases deserve due process. This decision is an “authority” and not a precedent, because it was issued by Chase while riding circuit here in Virginia. It wasn’t part of a majority Supreme Court decision. While not a precedent, it was a persuasive. In real time, it informed several other insurrection cases. It wasn’t at all controversial. The Colorado state supreme court’s decision is therefore contrary to what had been a decided matter.
I’ll give an example. When Mombet (Elizaebth Freeman) petitioned the courts of Massachusetts for her freedom on the basis that the new constitution of the state said all men are born free and equal, the decision was rendered by a district judge, not by the state supreme court. But the decision was persuasive. Slavery was thus abolished in that state. It would have been ridiculous for anybody to argue slavery wasn’t a decided matter in Massachusetts because the Mombet’s decision wasn’t a majority decision of the state supreme court.
But, Ludwig and his associates don’t cite Griffin, and so avoid the matter of due process.
(For more on Griffin, see Ted Cruz’ amicus brief starting on p. 6.)
Regarding #2
This is a wild argument. The Senate tried Trump on the argument, and Trump was acquitted. The acquittal argues that the evidence of the charge of insurrection is weak.
#2 ties back into #1. Has Trump been found by a court to be guilty of the crime of insurrection described in the U.S. Code? He hasn’t even been charged with that crime. So, of course not.
Ludwig and his associates might have been more clear about this argument. Maybe they mean that the Supreme Court should adopt a lesser standard than “proof beyond a reasonable double,” as would be afforded any defendant under our criminal code, and as the Griffin case argues. But, Ludwig and his associates don’t explicitly make this argument (that Trump shouldn’t be afforded the high level of protection that we give criminal defendants). As smart as they are, ignoring the obvious reveals that they know their chances are thin.
DISCLOSURE: I was opposed in the U.S. Circuit Court of Richmond by another party represented by attorneys from Ludwig’s law firm. A three-judge panel including a Trump appointee expressed sympathy with my case, but said it was flawed and left me free to re-litigate it at the district court level. I dropped the case for lack of timeliness and other considerations.
I thought it was Marc Short.
"Pwoof?" as Lanny Davis would say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.