Colorado had such a bad day before the Supreme Court as it tried to defend its decision to kick Donald Trump off its primary ballot that not even MSNBC and CNN could pretend otherwise. However, for MSNBC legal analyst, former Obama Solicitor General, and self-described “extremist centrist” on Twitter, Neal Katyal, it wasn’t because their arguments were so bad even the liberals appeared highly skeptical, but incompetence on the part of their lawyer.
Ana Cabrera wondered if the lawyer’s lack of experience had anything to do with it, “Neil, you are somebody who's argued before the Supreme Court. We know the challengers here, their lawyer Jason Murray, this is his first time going before the Supreme Court whereas Trump's lawyers argued five times before. Did you recognize the disparity in terms of their experience there? Or did you feel like both lawyers gave their strongest case and strongest arguments here?”
Katyal didn’t think so, arguing even experienced lawyers “mess up arguments.” At the same time, he declared that Murray should’ve been more combative with the Court, “in a case of this gravity, you need to basically call out the other side and you need to call out the Court even and so, you need to say about the other side, you are gutting the Constitution, Donald Trump. What you need to say to the Court is, look, for years, you have staked yourself on strict construction of the document, on the original intent of the document.”
Trying to insist that the states can add to Article II’s presidential eligibility requirements or that the Fourteenth Amendment gives states the right to determine if somebody engaged in a federal insurrection is quite literally the opposite of the original intent of the document when the latter says in plain English “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
The original case in Colorado was heard by seven Democratic appointees and even there the ruling was only 4-3. Nevertheless, Katyal continued to lament, “The original intent of the document is so clear against Donald Trump. You need to be using their methodology that they've used to say, look, you have to be consistent with what you have said before. We heard none of that today. I'm not sure why. That makes it, frankly, a really easy case for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide in favor of Donald Trump.”
Maybe because MSNBC's legal fantasies are not real. Ultimately, the problem for Murray is that his client is taking a position that is so preposterous that you almost feel bad for him… Almost.
Here is a transcript for the February 8 show:
MSNBC Trump Ballot Battle
2/8/2024
12:25 PM ET
ANA CABRERA: Neil, you are somebody who's argued before the Supreme Court. We know the challengers here, their lawyer, Jason Murray, this is his first time going before the Supreme Court, whereas Trump's lawyers argued five times before. Did you recognize the disparity in terms of their experience there? Or did you feel like both lawyers gave their strongest case and strongest arguments here?
NEAL KATYAL: Yeah, I don't want to chalk it up to experience. Like, you know, as you say, I have had a lot of experience, but I’ll certainly mess up arguments, so experience is no, you know, guarantee of anything.
So, I don't want to say that, but I do want to say in a case of this gravity, you need to basically call out the other side and you need to call out the Court even and so, you need to say about the other side, you are gutting the Constitution, Donald Trump. What you need to say to the Court is, look, for years, you have staked yourself on strict construction of the document, on the original intent of the document.
The original intent of the document is so clear against Donald Trump. You need to be using their methodology that they've used to say, look, you have to be consistent with what you have said before. We heard none of that today. I'm not sure why. That makes it, frankly, a really easy case for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide in favor of Donald Trump.
