Former federal judge: Supreme Court ‘dangerously betrayed’ democracy with Trump disqualification decision

Former federal judge J. Michael Luttig has ruled that Colorado cannot disqualify former President Trump from voting based on the 14th Amendment’s anti-insurrection clause, limiting his ability to seek reelection for a second term. He harshly criticized the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision that it could not be upheld.

Among the works published in atlantic Luttig, a longtime conservative jurist on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said Thursday that all nine justices “dangerously betrayed” democracy in their rulings.

Voters and advocacy groups have filed dozens of lawsuits against Trump’s voting eligibility in states across the country, arguing that his actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol triggered his disqualification. I had filed an objection.

The high court sided with Trump, ruling that Congress has exclusive authority to enforce the 14th Amendment to disqualify federal candidates.

Luttig, who was a vocal supporter of the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to bar President Trump from voting, called Section 3 of the 14th Amendment the Constitution’s “safety net for American democracy and the oath of office.” “We have promised to automatically disqualify all insurrectionists who violate the law from public office.” He deems them unconstitutional and too dangerous to hand over power unless supermajorities in both chambers formally remove their obstacles. ”

“Our Supreme Court has dramatically and dangerously betrayed its obligation to enforce what was once a constitutional safety net for American democracy. effectively canceling it,” Luttig wrote.

Ruttig pushed back against claims that barring Trump from the vote would be undemocratic, saying: “Disqualification is not anti-democratic. Disqualification is not anti-democratic. It’s undemocratic,” he wrote. Rather, as the Constitution emphasizes, it is rebellion that is anti-democratic. ”

He added: “The fact that the disqualification clause has not previously been invoked to prevent unconstitutional traitors from having a second chance to destroy the fabric of our country does not make it any less relevant; “This reflects our success in deterring the most dangerous attack on our government to date.” ”

Luttig, who previously filed amicus briefs in the case, reiterated the core arguments supporting Colorado’s decision.

“As a matter of constitutional design and purpose, what was supposed to be the culmination of the struggle for the survival of American democracy and the rule of law turned into its nadir, with a court unwilling to do its duty.” “It turns out that the Constitution must be interpreted as written,” Ruttig wrote.

“Desperate to allay the growing sense that it was nothing more than a political tool, the court instead cemented that image into history. The most constitutionally and politically dangerous court in our nation’s history.” At what could be a devastating moment, when the nation and the Constitution most need the court, the court is here to rule not on the politics of law, but on the laws of politics that are poisoning the lifeblood of the people. America.”