Meet the lawyers arguing the Trump ballot case at the Supreme Court

Members of Washington, D.C.’s elite group of Supreme Court experts wo n’t be heard by the justices when arguments are heard on Thursday regarding Donald Trumps ‘ suitability for the presidency.

Instead, the three attorneys presenting the situation are all from outside the ring and lack much background in the pulpit of the higher court.

John Mitchell, a liberal attorney who is the only one of the three to have ever appeared before the Supreme Court, did represent Trump. He has done this five times, and in his most recent event, Justice Elena Kagan was so irritated by his constitutional position that she referred to him as a genius in an indirect and mocking manner.

Jason Murray, a Denver attorney whose organization aims to hold influential persons guilty, will argue against Trump. Late last year, Murray was successful in getting Colorado’s top prosecutor to rule that Trump was ineligible to operate in Colorado because of the rebellion section. This historic ruling opened the door for the Supreme Court to address the issue.

On Thursday, Shannon Stevenson, the Colorado solicitor general, may even make a brief appearance at the podium. Stevenson did speak on behalf of the secretary of state for Colorado, who is in charge of upholding the country’s election laws.

The three candidates who will provide what may be the most significant election case since Bush v. Gore are described below.

John Mitchell

A “very violent lawyer”

Mitchell, 47, is a well-known conservative attorney and legal thinker who has held positions in the Texas lawyer general, law professor, and personal litigator who owns his own law firm.

Before the Trump situation, Mitchell was best known as the creator of a limiting Texas abortion laws that came before the court overturned Roe v. Wade, especially to the judges.

The ingenuity of the law, which bans abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, allows private citizens to enforce the ban by suing abortion providers or anyone else who facilitates an abortion. This novel enforcement mechanism doesn’t require state officials to enforce it, allowing Texas to implement an abortion ban even before the Supreme Court overturned Roe</