Why did this conservative US judge endorse Kamala Harris?

J Michael Luttig has never endorsed a Democrat before. That’s no surprise since the well-respected legal scholar – a retired federal appeals court judge – leans well right of center.
Appointed by the first President Bush in 1991, Luttig is from the old school of the Republican party. He once worked in Ronald Reagan’s White House and served as a law clerk to Antonin Scalia.
But now, whatever his policy views or personal politics, Luttig has set them aside. He will pull the lever in November for Kamala Harris.
Luttig wrote a withering statement about Donald Trump as he explained his decision to endorse the Democratic rival of the former president and Republican presidential nominee: “In voting for Vice President Harris, I assume that her public policy views are vastly different from my own, but I am indifferent in this election on any issues other than America’s Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law, as I believe all Americans should be.”
Although couched in restrained language, Luttig’s statement packs a punch.
How remarkable to read his view that every American should be indifferent to policy differences between themselves and Harris. Right now, he argues, any such disagreements are not worth quibbling over.
What really matters, in Luttig’s view, is getting past January of next year with US democracy intact. We can argue later about how to govern.
With that in mind, he sees Trump as utterly unfit and existentially dangerous.
Luttig’s statement ought to be a clarion call. It should be emulated by every conservative with a conscience and a sense of patriotism.
Sadly, there are too many on the right who ascribe to the misguided view that Trump’s supposed policy positions (what – mass deportations? More tax cuts for the super-wealthy?) should come before the obvious truth that electing him could destroy the United States as we know it.
These conservatives may criticize Trump, but they won’t endorse his rival.
How many times have we heard from Republican politicians that while, yes, they disagree with Trump’s words and behavior, they still intend to vote for him? Or they stay silent on the alternative.
Apparently, the notion of supporting a progressive Democrat such as Harris is beyond the pale.
“Respect to Judge Luttig,” wrote James Fallows, the journalist, former presidential speechwriter and incisive commentator. He called Luttig’s endorsement “an instructive contrast” to a long list of prominent Republicans including John Bolton, Nikki Haley, HR McMaster and George W Bush.
They and many others of their ilk have (so far) failed the integrity test. At this crucial time, they haven’t fully used their influence to make sure Trump can’t bring his wrecking ball to what remains of the US experiment.
Luttig has a greater sense of history – and a truer moral compass. Nor is this the first time he’s proven it.
He famously helped to persuade Mike Pence to certify the 2020 presidential election, defying Trump’s vehement urging and not-so-veiled threats.
In a series of tweets, Luttig set forth the rationale for the then vice-president to reject efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s legitimate victory. He publicly gave Pence a legal foundation for defying his boss.
Pence, notably, has said he won’t endorse Trump, startling in itself for a former vice-president; but despite everything he’s been through and all he knows, he has not pledged publicly to vote for Harris. Maybe Luttig’s example will inspire him to go there.
Two years later, Luttig endorsed Biden’s nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the supreme court. While Trump World was portraying Jackson as nothing but a high-level DEI hire, Luttig urged bipartisan support for the accomplished jurist, calling her eminently qualified. Jackson, of course, became the first Black woman appointed to the supreme court.
In an interview with CNN, which first reported his endorsement, Luttig explained that arriving at his decision to back Harris wasn’t complicated.
He described it as a simple matter of knowing right from wrong – not merely right from left.
Simple? Maybe so, but also admirable. And at this singular moment for US democracy, all too rare.