Talk:J. Michael Luttig

message: Letter of Revelation,
Recently J. Michael Luttig posited that Former President Trump is ineligible to become President in 2024 due to his age. He basis this assertion on a misinterpretation / inaccurate understanding of the passage in the Constitution which defines, for instance, the qualifications for the presidency of the United States. He brought up the fact that "the president must be 35 years of age." That is not a correct interpretation / understanding of the passage within the Constitution which is found in Article ll, section one "no person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." The intent of that passage with respect to age is indicating that a President must have attained the age of 35, which means that a President must be 35 years of age or older (i.e. having been at least 35 years of age, no younger, but puts no restriction on being older than 35). Judge Luttig's argument and assertion of facts is grossly wrong, without realistic basis and should be dismissed as such! For a Judge to display such an ignorance of our Constitution is disgraceful!
S.Schuck  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:D000:1999:4063:F6F:793E:D979 (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:NOTFORUM Bremps... 16:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

message: Well, it seems Mr Luttig's recent ruling was meant as a clear sign to the president that he is made of stern SCJ material. 
I'm apalled. Every fibre in a judge of a western democracy should give a wince of pain before he/she passes a ruling like Mr Luttig did today (9/10/05). Edit: However, it seems the president looked elsewhere to fill both vacancies.--Istabraq 18:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What ruling are you talking about? Either give a reference or provide more details. --Asbl 18:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to Jose PADILLA v. C. T. HANFT, U.S.N. Commander, Consolidated Naval Brig., No. 05-6396, decided September 9, 2005. Sorry for the delay.--Istabraq 01:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Letter of Application 

message: * What is the religious faith of Judge Michael Luttig?
a judges religion should not be considered. simply because judges are supposed to be non-biased and are supposed to leave their religious and personal beliefs out of any decision they make.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moogalishis (talk • contribs) 00:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Faith 

message: I'm sure :Image:050623 luttig ex.jpg is depicting Judge Michael Luttig, but why it isn't used here? The image is now orphaned, which means it may be at the risk of being deleted.Wooyi 19:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why it shouldn't be here.  Pan Dan 19:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Luttig's image 

message: A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/J. Michael Luttig was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot-created subpage

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on J. Michael Luttig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723151636/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/08/22/luttig.profile/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/08/22/luttig.profile/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on J. Michael Luttig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516033125/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050719/19luttig.htm to https://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050719/19luttig.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Why is this article in the category "Federalist Society members," when the term "Federalist Society" is mentioned nowhere in the text of the current version of this article? That doesn't seem very encyclopedic, does it? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" -- if you're comfortable with the rules related to sourcing and verifiability, feel free to make corrections to articles, including deletion of unsupported categories. NapoliRoma (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Federalist Society]]

message: References 36-42 7 of them, are all to fact check articles regarding Pence's ability to overturn the 2020 election on January 6, 2021. They all were published by good quality sources, but surely (without my having read them all) they all say much the same thing. The words "Fact Check" appear in all seven headlines.
This seems excessive, like trying to crack an egg with 7 sledgehammer blows: it just makes a mess. IMHO it suggests an editor trying to slip in a comment that, if included openly, would risk a NPOV citation. If I am right about that, it happens to be my pov too, but this is not the place or the way to advocate for it.
Absent any disagreement, I will return and reduce the 7 to the best 2 or maybe 3. Dgndenver (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive references