Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

Anti-Trump Attorney Reamed by Neil Gorsuch, “I’m not going to say it again!”


Wow. This SCOTUS hearing is turning out to be a drubbing for Colorado attorney Jason Murray.

During oral arguments on Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch trounced the anti-Trump lawyer over his arguments concerning insurrection.

The attorney getting spanked in the hearing, Jason Murray, was once a clerk for Justice Gorsuch, as well as Justice Kagan, according to The Hill:

Murray, a partner at Olson Grimsley, is set to make his Supreme Court argument debut Thursday, representing six Colorado voters who challenged Trump’s ballot eligibility in the state.

Murray was previously a law clerk for liberal Justice Elena Kagan, and he also clerked for conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch when Gorsuch served on a federal appeals court.

Trump supporters are piling on Murray over his humiliating performance.

It’s important to note that not all Coloradans support this action the state has so generously taken on their behalf.

The Daily Caller has more on this thrashing of attorney Jason Murray:

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito questioned Murray, who is representing Colorado voters, on whether military officers could have refused to take an order from a president who engaged in insurrection, with Murray implying officers could not, a theory known as the de Facto Officer Doctrine.

Gorsuch interjected to note that Murray had previously argued that Trump is disqualified from holding office “from the moment [an insurrection] happens.”

“So you say there’s no legislation necessary, I thought that was the whole theory of your case,” Gorsuch said.

Murray argued that “of course” there needs to be a procedure to remedy the enforcement of the disqualification and began to speak of the de Facto Officer Doctrine before Gorsuch told Murray to put that argument of ‘DeFacto Doctrine’ aside.

The de Facto Officer Doctrine precludes “challenges to official actions on the ground of defective title in the acting official,” according to Columbia Law Review. In simpler terms, the doctrine gives validity to the acts performed by a person who was acting in the capacity of their title even though it may later be discovered that persons election or appointment is invalid.

Gorsuch then said, under Murray’s argument, that if the 14th Amendment is self-executing and Trump is disqualified from the moment he allegedly engaged in insurrection then military officers could ignore an order from the president and be free to act as they please.

Murray said he doesn’t agree with that because the defacto doctrine would “come into play.”

“Put that aside, I’m not gonna say it again, put that aside,” Gorsuch chided, adding Alito may be asking Murray a question more “difficult” for Murray to be capable of answering.

 



 

Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Leave a comment
Thanks for sharing!