Former federal court Judge J. Michael Luttig was stunned by a "cynical" defense filed by former President Donald Trump in the Supreme Court case challenging his eligibility to appear on Colorado's ballot under the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban.
Luttig, a Republican who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, took to the social media site "X" on Monday evening to explain his shock at the arguments made by the former president's attorneys, which he argued were tantamount to admitting defeat.
"I would not have made the revealing, fatuous, and politically and constitutionally cynical, concluding argument that the former president and his lawyers made to the Supreme Court in their Reply Brief today," Luttig wrote.
Read Also: Why Donald Trump should absolutely fear the 14th Amendment
"I would consider this argument tantamount to an acknowledgment that the former president and his lawyers have all but concluded that their arguments have become so weakened by the briefing of respondents and their supporting amici that they believe the Supreme Court is likely to hold the former president is disqualified."
Luttig likened the argument that not even the Supreme Court has the authority to disqualify Trump to an "eleventh-hour, Hail Mary."
"[N]either the Colorado Supreme Court nor this Court can declare a candidate ineligible for the presidency now based on a prediction of what Congress may or may not do in the future," the argument reads. "Nor can a court deprive a presidential candidate of the opportunity to petition Congress."
Lawfare journalist Roger Parloff was surprised to see Trump argue he could not be disqualified until after Jan. 20, 2029.
Parloff quoted attorney Richard Bernstein, who wrote an amicus brief for Luttig, saying, "It reminds one of the White Queen in Through the Looking-Glass: "Jam tomorrow and jam yesterday--but never jam today."
Vocal Trump critic George Conway was also among those not impressed.
"Bizarre," he wrote. "And a sign of weakness."