“No shame. No decency”: Experts shocked at "weakness" of Trump’s bizarre Supreme Court ballot appeal

Former President Donald Trump on Wednesday appealed the Colorado ruling barring him from the state’s primary ballot to the Supreme Court.

The Colorado Supreme Court last month found that Trump engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6 and was barred from appearing on the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — a post-Civil War provision barring insurrectionists from office.

Trump’s lawyers in a filing asked the U.S. Supreme Court to put his name back on the ballot, arguing it would "mark the first time in the history of the United States that the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for the leading major-party presidential candidate.”

Trump’s team called on the court to "return the right to vote for their candidate of choice to the voters,” arguing that only Congress has the authority to determine who is eligible for the presidency.

Trump’s team also disputed that he engaged in insurrection, citing a "long history of political protests that have turned violent."

Legal experts criticized Trump’s filing starting with the very first line, which noted that it is a “fundamental principle” of the Constitution that “the people should choose whom they please to govern them.”

“No shame. No decency,” tweeted former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, alluding to Trump’s own efforts to disenfranchise voters after his 2020 loss.

“The sort of gall that the brief represents, it's really, I think, shocking,” former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who served on special counsel Bob Mueller’s team, told MSNBC. “It's really sort of beyond the pale and legally wrong.”

“Donald Trump is charged with, essentially, disenfranchising, trying to disenfranchise 80 million people,” Weissmann said.

Conservative attorney George Conway went through the indictment on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Thursday.

"This is a bizarre document, and I think it reflects the weakness of Trump's position,” he said.

"He is throwing stuff up at the wall, or throwing stuff up in a zoo cage, and seeing what would stick,” Conway said, noting that Trump lacks “real appellate advocates” on his legal team and that the filing is effectively “channeling Trump’s narcissism.”

"The third reason, I think, is the fundamental weakness of his position. The fifth point in this brief, point five, Roman numeral five, is he didn't engage in insurrection. It is not number one. The reason is, it's because his arguments are very, very weak. If you look at the question in terms of President Trump should be removed from the ballot, it's kind of a shocking notion to those of us who haven't lived, until now, in an era where public officials engage in insurrection. But it was familiar to the people who enacted the 14th amendment,” he said.

"When you go through the issues one by one by one, the way lawyers are supposed to, his case looks terrible," he added.

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor, noted that Trump’s argument that he did not engage in insurrection is a “weak argument.”

“First on the facts but second, the Supreme Court’s not going to touch that,” he said. “They’re not a fact-finder, they don’t do trials. They generally won’t make that kind of finding.”

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Honig said it is unclear how the court might look at Trump’s arguments that the matter should be left to Congress or that he was not given due process in the Colorado case.

"And then the fourth argument is this claim that the term 'officers,' as it's used in the insurrection clause, doesn't include the president. I tend to side with Colorado and [the plaintiffs] on that one. You can carve that up linguistically either way but just [on] common sense, how could it not apply to the president?” Honig questioned. "All of this is new… whatever happens here, we're all going to learn together."