'Colorado will lose': Legal analysts shocked by how bad Supreme Court argument went

Legal analysts anticipate that Colorado lost at the U.S. Supreme Court in the arguments for Trump v. Anderson on Thursday.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann pointed to the way that the questions were going and anticipated the ruling would be a "win" even if the court's Democrat-appointed judges affirmed Colorado's decision.

"Colorado will lose, with the only issue being whether a single Justice will dissent. Tough and smart questions by the Justices, including the 3 in the liberal wing," he posted on social media.

"The Nation's" legal analyst, Elie Mystal, agreed, "The case is submitted. I think it's 9-0 Trump on the ballot. I'm going to scream into the void and then write. Thank you all for joining me on yet another journey of 'How Democracies Die' that took an unexpected detour into 'Why Democrats Fail.'"

"My bet: Between 7-2 and 9-0 for the very specific proposition that states can’t unilaterally disqualify candidates running for President on the ground that they engaged in insurrection," said University of Texas Law School professor Steve Vladeck.

Former acting solicitor general Neal Katyal argued that the Colorado team was horrific in the way that they argued. One problem he had was that the argument lacked an appeal to the exact language in the Constitution's clause barring insurrectionists from holding federal office.

"So, you need to say about the other side, you are gutting the Constitution, Donald Trump," Katyal continued. "You need to say to the court, look, for years, you have staked yourself on a strict construction of the document, on the original intent of the document. The original intent was to clear against Donald Trump. You need to be using their methodology that they have 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."

He said that this line of reasoning gets the court out of the requirement of determining whether Trump committed insurrection and can instead use technicalities to keep him on the ballot.

"You could imagine a world in which the gravity of the court, the center of the court, that's the Chief [Justice John Roberts], Justice [Amy Coney] Barrett, [Brett] Kavanaugh saying, look, our principal is to reduce the temperature about the Supreme Court, stay out of decisions wherever we can," he said. "The way to do that, the path forward, is to say Trump wins; the 14th Amendment is not self-executing because of the technical argument. You need Congress to act."

Watch the video below or at this link.

'Colorado will lose': Legal analysts shocked by how bad Supreme Court argument wentyoutu.be