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.
"Pwoof?" as Lanny Davis would say.
The Second SCOTUS ruled in Marbury v Madison that the Constitution is to be interpreted in the way the writers understood it, and if it was ambiguous, the the most restrictive of government power is to be used since the intent of the framers of the Constitution was to limit government power.
I hate these a$$holes. They put on this farce, and it wasn’t even an “insurrection”. Nobody tried to overthrow the government. At most it was disorderly conduct and or trespassing. I loathe the swamp scum.
The assertion that Trump engaged in an insurrection is ludicrous on it’s face. The only real interest is trying to figure out Luttig’s motive. With Conway & Christie it is clear that they are disappointed office seekers, but Luttig is a mystery to me.
We’ve literally got a kid sniffing Chinese agent in the WH and they’re ok with it
Anything else they have to say is disqualified as moronic bs
Not this crap again. This is the same judge who authored the memo for the Bush administration saying torture is OK. He’s a Neocon nut.
“...“incited, and therefore engaged in, an armed insurrection”
That amendment and that section of that amendment does not and never did apply to ex Presidents. He should learn to read.
This freaking idiot doesn’t know it, but his texturalist approach would disqualify every senator and congressman who have voted to not uphold the law on 1) immigiraton, 2) overseas boondoggles and corrupution, 3) trading stocks with the knowlege gained on the job. About 30% of the federal employees who are DNC’ers at work would be disqualified. Anyone who advocates for no voter picture ID or benefited from operations to manipulate the vote count with fake votes that was elected to office.