Rocky Mountain low: Colorado’s lawyer didn’t get it right before the Supreme Court
Daniel Webster himself could not have won the argument yesterday at the supremely partisan Supreme Court. Justice William Brennan famously said that the most important skill for any justice was “counting to five.” The six conservative justices, three appointed by Donald Trump, were never going to remove former president from the Colorado ballot — or, for that matter, from any ballot in the country.
If Trump fails to regain the White House, it will have to be because he is rejected by the voters, not the judges. Even if the Supreme Court turns down his immunity argument, the Jan. 6 trial proceeds, and he is convicted before the election, he can still run. And if he runs and is elected, the four criminal prosecutions with their 91 felony counts will fade into history.
Jason C. Murray, the lawyer for the Colorado voters, was articulate and plainly spoken in his maiden oral argument before the court, but the answers he gave to the justices’ questions were not the best. He could have made a better record for why disqualification was indicated.
Murray’s argument was deeply flawed in that, instead of arguing for a uniform national rule dictated not by Colorado but by the Constitution, he flatly conceded that, “Different states can have different procedures. Some states may allow insurrectionists to be on the ballot.” In short, he was arguing for a crazy quilt of rules that would breed electoral chaos.
Justice Thomas, whom many thought should have recused himself because of his wife’s involvement with the Trump effort to overturn the 2020 election, asked Murray for examples since 1868 of states disqualifying candidates for the presidency. Murray basically conceded that he had no........
© The Hill
visit website