Leftist rage against partisan jurists dissipated by so-called conservative judge after former President Donald Trump’s removal from Colorado ballot.
(Video: CNN)
Next-level Never Trumping played out Tuesday night as corporate media trotted out a new token right-wing apologist peddling justification for the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling barring the former president from the state’s ballot. Giving off full “The Princess Bride” energy, former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig repeatedly described the 4-3 ruling as “unassailable.”
“The individual justices of the Colorado Supreme Court brought honor to their court as well to the state and federal judiciaries with their opinion tonight in this historic case,” he told CNN’s Pamela Brown on “AC360.”
“Their opinion is unassailable under the objective law of the federal constitution and section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment,” he continued. “The Supreme Court of the United States ought to affirm this decision today.”
Working alongside former Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, Luttig had previously published a piece in The Atlantic peddling his logic and went on to contend, “I called it unassailable because, as you noted, the preeminent constitutional scholar of our time, Professor Laurence Tribe, and I have been studying this for three years now in the wake of January 6th. Professor Tribe has been studying section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment literally for his entire career. So, when we say…that the opinion is unassailable, that means he and I have taken into account every single argument contrary to every point made by the court today and concluding all of the contrary evidence to the opinion tonight — and it is unassailable.”
He added, the Supreme Court will “have to decide what the meaning of an insurrection or rebellion is for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. And that’s what the Supreme Court of Colorado did today, and its reasoning and its support for that conclusion is also unassailable.”
Naturally, Luttig’s position made him an instant hero and the pinnacle of conservatism to those who most often clutch their pearls over “threats to democracy.”
I thought Judge Luttig to be one of the most important, honorable witnesses in the televised J6C Hearings. A true American .
— Claire S (@SaintLaurant) December 20, 2023
I really wish Judge Luttig was on the SCOTUS
— CHRISSY (@chrissywhite71) December 20, 2023
I ❤️ this retired, Conservative Judge.
— Jodie Janin (@JodieJanin) December 20, 2023
It better stick. If it don’t, their is no US Constitution
— Bradley Davenport (@bjd101283) December 20, 2023
judge Luttig is a conservative so they can’t say he is bias
— Naomi Blue (@NaomiBlue24) December 20, 2023
Judge Luttig should be in the history books. He and Pro Tribe and Congresswoman Cheney have done more to push the legal basis for expelling and punishing Trump than anyone. They all should be in the history books. But especially Luttig for his talking to Pence
— Anon Y Mouse (@AnonYMo66156043) December 20, 2023
Meanwhile, CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig had knocked Luttig and Tribe’s argument in August and stated, “The problem is that the Fourteenth Amendment tells us nothing about how that decision gets made, nor does any caselaw or statute that’s been passed. Does Congress decide? Is it the Senate? Is it the House? Is it a majority? Is it two-thirds? Is it a court? Is it a jury? Is it a judge?”
“What they’re proposing essentially is, ‘Well, every state, local, county official who handles ballots will just decide on their own whether he’s disqualified or not.’ That would lead to wild inconsistency and chaos,” added Honig, “and I don’t think that’s a viable practical solution here.”
Similarly, George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley reacted Tuesday and told former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany filling in as host of “Hannity” on Fox News, “I think they are dead wrong on the law.”
“I think it’s fundamentally flawed, both in terms of the language of the Constitution and the history,” he said of the Colorado ruling.
“They had to adopt the most sweeping interpretation on every single issue. The only opinion that’s not sweeping is when they get to the First Amendment and free speech, then they adopt a narrow interpretation,” said Turley. “They suggest Trump doesn’t have free speech protections. In order to establish he was engaged in an insurrection, they go back to speeches in 2016, and they basically daisy chain these speeches to say, ‘look he’s been at this for a long time.’ I think the factual and legal basis of this opinion is really so porous that the Supreme Court will make fast work of it.”
Native of Brooklyn, NY, Kevin Haggerty is a graduate of Hunter College where he studied Cultural Anthropology and Geography. An avid reader and truth seeker, he currently resides in Texas with his wife and their dog and, when he isn't researching current events and their impacts, you'll find him spending time with friends and family or working on his next novel.
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.