‘I’m Not Going to Say It Again!’ Gorsuch Hammers Anti-Trump Lawyer Over Insurrectionist Argument
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch hammered the Colorado attorney challenging Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on the state’s ballot during a tense moment in court on Thursday.
Attorney Jason Murray argued that Trump committed insurrection on January 6th, 2021, and therefore disqualified himself from running for public office. Furthermore, Murray noted that Trump disqualified himself the moment the alleged insurrection occurred.
Gorsuch, along with Justice Samuel Alito, pressed Murray on his argument, asking if it would then be lawful for military officers to disobey orders from the commander-in-chief the moment the alleged crime occurred.
Murray responded that despite Trump being disqualified from holding office, military commanders would still need to follow his orders until legal procedures occurred to enforce the disqualification. However, Gorsuch did not agree with his answer and continued to hammer the attorney in court:
MURRAY: Well, certainly you need a procedure in order to have any remedy to enforce the disqualification.
GORSUCH That’s a whole separate question. That’s the de facto doctrine, doesn’t work here. Okay, put that aside. He’s disqualified from the moment. Self-executing. Done. And I would think that a person who would receive a direction from that person, the president, former president, in your view, would be free to act as he or she wishes without regard to that individual.
MURRAY: I don’t think so, because I think, again, the divine officer doctrine would nevertheless come into play.
GORSUCH: No that doesn’t work, Mr. Murray, because de facto officer is to ratify the conduct that’s done afterwards and insulate from judicial review. Put that aside. I’m not going to say it again. Put it aside. Okay. I think Justice Alito is asking a very different question, a more pointed one and more difficult one for you. I understand, but I think it deserves an answer. On your theory, would anything compel a lower official to obey an order from, in your view, the former president?
MURRAY: I’m imagining a situation where, for example, a former president was, you know, a president was elected and they were 25 and they were ineligible-
GORSUCH: No, no. We’re talking about sections three. Please don’t change the hypothetical, okay? Please don’t change the hypothetical. I know, I like doing it too, but please don’t do it.
MURRAY: The point I’m trying to make is-
GORSUCH: He’s disqualified from the moment he committed an insurrection. Whoever it is, whichever party that at, that happens. Boom! It happened. What would compel…and I’m not going to say it again so just try and answer the question if you don’t have an answer fair enough. We’ll move on. What would compel a lower official to obey an order from that individual?
MURRAY: Because ultimately we have statutes and rules requiring chains of command. The person is in the office, and even if they don’t have the authority to hold the office, the only way to get someone out of the office of the presidency is impeachment. And so I think if you interpreted section three in light of other provisions in the Constitution, like impeachment, while they hold office impeachments, the only way to validate that they don’t have the ability to hold that office and should be removed.
Watch the clip above via CNN.
