Attorney George Conway has penned a lengthy piece for The Atlantic in which he takes President Donald Trump's lawyers to task for their arguments in favor of keeping him on Colorado's Republican primary ballot.
In particular, he noted that Trump's petition to the United States Supreme Court about his ballot eligibility "didn’t conform with the ordinary rules and practices" and instead asks what he describes as "a Cuisinart of a question" -- namely, "Did the Colorado Supreme Court err in ordering President Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot?"
Conway then speculated on several reasons why Trump's petition was structured in this way, and he said that two main reasons may be his own lack of high-quality lawyers, as well as those lawyers' need to please him rather than make effective legal arguments.
"The Cuisinart question reeks of narcissism," Conway argues. "It says: Look at what they did to me! So unfair! It translates easily from the original Trumpish: Wasn’t the Colorado Supreme Court so very, very mean to me?"
RELATED: Donald Trump’s un-American ploy for criminal immunity
However, Conway also believes that the underlying case for Trump here is fundamentally weak and he is baffled as to why the Supreme Court allowed the question proposed by Trump's petition to stand rather than demand it be broken down into more specific components.
At the end, Conway speculates that "the reason the Court had to take the Cuisinart question was because Trump and the GOP couldn’t find a dispositive legal proposition that the Colorado court clearly got wrong."
