Alito rushed in to save 'failing' Trump lawyer during hearing: legal experts

Donald Trump's lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, had a rough start to the arguments in Trump v. Anderson on Thursday before the U.S. Supreme Court, legal analysts noted.

Live-tweeting the proceeding, several attorneys couldn't help but notice that Mitchell was struggling.

The Nation's legal analyst Elie Mystal explained that Mitchell was caught by Justice Elena Kagan making an argument that wasn't based on the text of the Constitution.

"You're not making a constitutional argument. You're making a statutory pre-emption argument... is that right?" she asked.

Mystal noted that "one of the fun things about the Trump argument is that it's actually *not* grounded in constitutional law."

RELATED: Prison president: How Donald Trump could serve from behind bars

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined with Kagan in the argument, which is when Mitchell was forced to admit that his argument wasn't a constitutional one.

Mystal pointed out that Justice Samuel Alito came "to the rescue" by "restating Mitchell's argument for him since he was flailing."

Norm Eisen, former ethics czar and longtime legal analyst, observed the same.

"Alito arguing that self-executing is a misnomer here -- throwing Trump lawyer a lifeline," he posted on social media.

Jed Shugerman, a Boston University professor, also pointed out that "Alito picks back up on Mitchell's argument that Colorado is impermissibly adding a qualification for office. The exchange isn't illuminating. It seems clear enough from the text of Section 3 that it's a disqualification from office, i.e. a new qualification."

He went on to call it a "Weird argument."