USA (Washington Insider Magazine)—According to former federal judge J. Michael Luttig, the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling against former President Donald Trump is not political. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the former president is disqualified for the state’s presidential primary ballot. The Conservative denied all allegations of the ruling being political.
Last week, the Colorado court’s decision drew the first time a court has adopted an unusual theory. It stated that the former president disqualified himself from a second term by trying to overturn the 2020 election.
In an interview with MSNBC on Saturday, host Ali Velshi questioned the former judge about concerns that disqualifying the 2024 Republican frontrunner is anti-democratic, even if it concedes with United States laws.
Luttig criticised politicians and media platforms for taking up the argument, presenting, “It is the Constitution itself that tells us that disqualification is not anti-democratic.”
“Indeed, the Constitution tells us that it is the conduct that can give rise to disqualification. Namely, an insurrection or rebellion that is anti-democratic. To me, that’s about as clear as any document or Constitution could make that point,” Luttig said.
“I think it’s crystal clear, and it will be crystal clear to the American public, that the Constitution of the United States disqualifies the former president from higher office if he is to be disqualified. To speak to the political warriors, it’s not President Joe Biden. It’s not the Democrats. It’s not the anti-Trumpers. It’s the Constitution of the United States,” he commented.
The legal dilemma at the centre of the case is the language of the Constitution’s insurrection clause. It states that Trump initiated an insurrection when his followers stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
A Colorado district judge last month maintained that Trump had “engaged in an insurrection” by prompting the mob that stormed that U.S. Capitol. However, the provision of the 14th Amendment that disqualifies certain officials concerned with insurrection did not apply to a president. So, the Colorado Supreme Court denied that argument in their 4-3 ruling. It discovered that the section does involve the former president.
“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the court wrote. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favour, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.”
Moreover, Former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley told journalists: “I will tell you that I don’t think Donald Trump needs to be president, I think I need to be president,” “But I will beat him fair and square. We don’t need judges making these decisions, we need voters to make these decisions.”
Furthermore, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie commented, “I do not think Donald Trump should be prevented from being President of the United States by any court,” said at a town hall in New Hampshire Tuesday night. “I think he should be prevented from being President of the United States by the voters of this country.”
On the other hand, House Speaker Mike Johnson, a relentless ally of the former president, called the ruling a “thinly veiled partisan attack.” He spearheaded a legal brief in support of an unsuccessful lawsuit to topple the results of the 2020 election. He said he was confident the Supreme Court would change what he called a “reckless decision.”
