[Impala64ssa]

Leave it to PMSNBC to find a "conservative" judge who affirms the left's collective wet dreams of keeping Pres Trump of the ballots.

[Mark]

Doesn’t he have many weddings to perform ?

[falcon99]

Apparently Luttig and all the rest of the Rino republicans and Leftists don’t seem to remember that Trump was charged with J6 while still in office (Pelosi’s 2nd impeachment of Trump) and found not guilty by the Senate. Guess this has no meaning to people like Luttig and other Trump haters.

[Dr. Sivana]

He’s a Bushie:

” He returned to government service in 1989, holding various positions within the United States Department of Justice until 1991 under President George H. W. Bush, including assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel.[3][7] His duties in the Justice Department included assisting Supreme Court nominees David Souter and Clarence Thomas through the nomination and confirmation process” (from Wikipedia)

[Yo-Yo]

Famed Conservative Judge who?

Never heard of 'em...

[logi_cal869]

No, it does not.

[DesertRhino]

Nothing conservative about that assclown. Bush appointee. He resigned to be the head counsel for Boeing. He’s a corporate whore. He even colludes with Lawrence Tribe.

[ifinnegan]

Article 3 Section 3.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

—

This “judge” seems nuts.

[Political Junkie Too]

“The Supreme Court does not want to decide this case and they will likely look for every legitimate way possible to avoid deciding whether the former president is disqualified from the presidency. But there are very, very few, if any, off ramps that would allow the Supreme Court to avoid decision in this case. Indeed, I believe there are none.

Here's one.

If I were on the Supreme Court, here is how I would play this out:

1. Ruling "ripeness," I would say that the lower courts cannot rule on keeping Trump off of the ballot because this isn't a general election and former President Trump hasn't won the primary yet. A lot of future events still must happen before Trump is close to being President, so the ban is overturned.

2. After the primaries are concluded, I would point out that primaries are party-specific nomination processes, and that even the winner of the primary is not the official candidate until the party's convention selects the candidate it wants to run in the general election. The issues is still not ripe.

3. After the convention confirms former President Trump as its nominee, I would rule that Trump is not actually on the ballot, Electors are. Trump's name is a convenient tag to make it easier for the voters, but according to the Constitution it's the Electors who are being voted on, so removing Trump from the ballot is really removing the Electors from the ballot, which is unconstitutional.

4. If former President Trump actually wins the general election, THEN AND ONLY THEN should the Supreme Court review President-elect Trump's qualification to be President via the 20th amendment Section 3: " if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified;"

5. At this point, the Supreme Court should hear 14th amendment Section 3 arguments regarding disqualification over insurrection. This finding will then meet or fail to meet the 20th amendment's "fail to qualify" clause and the President-Elect may or may not be disqualified at this time.

6. The beauty of this is the same as when Democrats tamper with the election: the party that wins still wins. If Trump is disqualified after winning the election, the Republican VP takes over as President, instead of the Democrats' plan to remove Trump so that Biden can win the election.

Notice how when Democrats abuse the campaign finance laws by accepting questionable funding that pays for their negative ads and get-out-the-vote operations, and after they win the election and the source of tainted funds is revealed the Democrats apologize and "return the funds" but keep the seat?

That's what we have to engineer now. We need to get the Supreme Court to defer their ruling to the 20th amendment (not the 14th amendment), and then however way the ruling goes the Republicans keep the Presidency.

-PJ

[lurk]

All these judges pulling opinions out of their shorts, ignoring the constitution and statute.

[Sarah Barracuda]

Conservative judge my ass never heard of this douche bag..the constitution is VERY clear, you cannot have an insurrection against YOURSELF which is what they are accusing Trump of doing..according to them Trump was trying to overthrow HIMSELF..so if that is the case fine, if Trump cant be on the ballot, neither can joe Biden, he will be removed from multiple states and neither candidate will be able to get to 270

[NorthMountain]

Famed?

Never heard of him ...

[odawg]

from Reason:

There is a recent Supreme Court opinion discussing the scope of the Constitution’s “Officers of the United States”-language. In Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010), Chief Justice Roberts observed that “[t]he people do not vote for the ‘Officers of the United States.’” Rather, “officers of the United States” are appointed exclusively pursuant to Article II, Section 2 procedures. It follows that the President, who is an elected official, is not an “officer of the United States.”

[silent majority rising]

5 years ago, I would not have thought it was possible. Now, I am not so sure...Anything is possible. MSNBC cannot be blamed because, like a dog that eats its own vomit, it is playing to its insane audience.

[Chad C. Mulligan]

His track record is pretty good, but this is nuts!

[FlingWingFlyer]

Conservative judge my aye! Arrrggg!

[kiryandil]

Luttig was able to get his father's killer offed by the "judicial" system in lightning fashion - 8 years.

The rest of us peasants have to wait for 20-35 years for satisfaction.

He's Elite. Beasley chose poorly, or he'd still be alive.

[silent majority rising]

“Judge J. Michael Luttig” testified for the prosecution in the J-6 trial.

[hecticskeptic]

With the talk years ago of him on the SCOTUS, I feel about the same as I do about Garland...we dodged a bullet.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

If Trump is the defendant, he’s GUILTY!

[devere]

Is Luttig suffering from senile dementia? Or does Trump derangement syndrome have the same symptoms?