George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley on Thursday criticized Colorado attorney Jason Murray's advocacy in the Supreme Court seeking to remove former President Donald Trump from the vote.

In December, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled 4-3 to exclude Trump from the state's 2024 election ballot based on the “insurrectionist” clause in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Murray argued on behalf of Colorado but did not do a convincing job of answering difficult questions, Turley argued on Fox News' “America Report.” (Related: Sol Weisenberg predicts 'we'll lose' Maine Secretary of State's legal battle to keep Trump off the ballot)

“It was a very interesting debate. It was a very difficult debate for Jason Murray, who was at the center of the questions, and he was up to the challenge,” Turley said. “The judges were lining up to ask him some really tough questions. But what was interesting was how many of them came from the left side of the court. What was most interesting was Justice. [Ketanji Brown] Jackson. ”

“What really surprised me was that Murray was so caught up in all these horrible acts that he didn't have much to answer for,” he added later in the discussion. “They pushed him to the edge of the map. He really struggled and in some cases made small concessions, and that will be repeated in his opinion.”

Turley argued that the Supreme Court could reach a unanimous or near-unanimous decision because both liberal and conservative justices asked Murray tough questions. Liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, for example, pressed Murray on whether states should have the power to exclude national candidates from the ballot under the 14th Amendment.

“I think the question we have to face, which may be the boldest way to put it, is why should a single state have to decide who becomes president of the United States?” Kagan said. “In other words, this question of whether a former president should be disqualified from serving as president again for insurrection…sounds terribly national to me, so to speak. Therefore, forcing it It suggests that whatever the means, it must be a federal, national means.”

“If you’re not from Colorado, but you’re from Wisconsin, or you’re from Michigan, and the actions of the Michigan Secretary of State are going to make the difference between candidate A winning and candidate B winning, That seems extremely unusual, doesn't it? Kagan asked.

All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers with large audiences. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.