Ex-GOP judge: Why 'structurally damaging' SCOTUS Trump ruling calls for constitutional amendment

When President Joe Biden announced his plan to propose reforms to the US Supreme Court Monday, retired conservative Judge J. Michael Luttig expressed his support for the president's proposed amendment — which would "partially overturn the landmark immunity ruling by making clear former presidents do not enjoy criminal immunity from federal criminal indictments," The Hill reported.

One of Donald Trump's most vocal critics — and of the Supreme Court mainly for the justices' ruling of absolute immunity for US presidents earlier this month — Luttig explained to MSNBC's Ali Velshi on Wednesday night why he's one of the "No One Is Above the Law Amendment" supporters.

"I just want to underscore a point that you make, and that is there are bad Supreme Court decisions, historically, ideas change and evolve, and some of those decisions can be undone," Velshi noted. "The point you're making about this one is it is structurally damaging, and can have an effect that would be very hard to undo because it unbalances the way we think about our government."

READ MORE: Anti-Trump GOP judge urges Jack Smith in 'strongest possible' way to dodge 'cynical partisan politics'

Luttig replied, "That's right, and in that regard, I would like your viewers and listeners to understand that, in effect, this decision was engineered by the Supreme Court to reach the idea that it did, in this sense. The former president has been charged by the United States of America with perhaps the gravest crimes possible by an incumbent president, with the exception, perhaps, of treason."

The former Republican judge emphasized, "The only result that would protect the former president from prosecution for those grave offenses against the United States of America was the rule that the Supreme Court adopted, of absolute immunity for all official acts by the president of the United States."

Noting the significance of the court's ruling in Trump's favor, Luttig added, "Never in the 250 years has anyone, to my knowledge — anyone —even suggested that is the rule or ought to be the rule. Not even the Supreme Court. In fact, the Supreme Court itself for 250 years has suggested the absolute polar opposite — that the president of the United States — of all persons — is not above the law, and subject to the constitution and laws of the United States."

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Progressive group to launch $10 million campaign focused on SCOTUS reforms