Former Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal on Thursday gave a critique of the argument of the Colorado attorneys arguing against former President Donald Trump before the Supreme Court.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in December that Trump is ineligible to be on the state’s primary ballot under Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment. Trump appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Thursday regarding the case.

“Neil, how did you see it? And what were some parts that struck out the most to you?” host Jose Diaz-Balart asked.

“I have watched over 400 Supreme Court arguments. I have done 50 myself. I would tell you, this argument did not go well for the Trump challengers and that’s to put it mildly. I probably have some other adjectives I won’t say on air. The thing I was watching for was any indication anywhere about just how dangerous a ruling to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court was. We heard a lot from the court, particularly the chief justice, Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Alito, about how if you affirm the Colorado decision, it will empower states to mess with federal elections. And to be sure, that’s a risk,” Katyal said.

“But what you never heard the Trump challengers really get at was the risk on the other side, that this is a canonical part of our constitution forged after the civil war at one of the most difficult times in our nation’s history, and yet we came together and said, ‘insurrectionists can’t be on the ballot,’ not just about the civil war, but going forward for all sorts of reasons. There was no discussion of that really. Basically, they allowed Donald Trump to read the 14th Amendment like a tax code, looking for a loophole here and a loophole there. Unfortunately, the stakes on the other side were not presented to the court today,” Katyal continued. (RELATED: ‘I’m Not Gonna Say This Again’: Justice Gorsuch Chides Colorado Lawyer After Leaving Him Tongue-Tied)

“I saw only one justice really, Justice Sotomayor, who was really listening to what the Colorado challengers were saying. It wouldn’t shock me if even she, when push came to shove and she reads the transcript of this argument, may come the other way. Now the justices could go back, they could read all friend of the court briefs, which make a lot of these points and come up with the other side. Presumably, they read those before the argument today and they got no help to use Justice Alito’s word, no help from the challengers to Trump today in the oral argument.”

“Can I ask a follow-up about that specifically? Neil, you are somebody who argued before the Supreme Court. We know the challengers here, their lawyer Jason Murray, this is his first time going before the Supreme Court. Whereas Trump’s lawyers argued before the Supreme Court five times before. Did you recognize the disparity in terms of their experience there? Or did you feel like both lawyers gave their strongest case and strongest arguments here?” MSNBC’s Ana Cabrera jumped in.

Katyal said that it has less to do with experience and more to do with the challengers calling out Trump and the court directly. Katyal argued the Colorado attorneys failed to convince the justices to look at the case from an originalist perspective and made it easy for the court to decide in favor of Trump.