The nation's hight court appeared highly critical of a Colorado Supreme Court decision that would ban Trump from the state's 2024 GOP primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

In more than two hours of oral arguments, each of the court's nine justices expressed skepticism that an individual state has the authority to deny a candidate for federal office from the ballot as an "insurrectionist."

While the court's ultimate decision is not always clear based on the questions raised during a hearing, it appeared likely that a majority of the court is ready to reverse the Colorado decision and put an end to efforts nationwide seeking to disqualify Trump under the rarely used, 150-year-old Constitutional provision.

Read more about takeaways from the arguments here.

-ABC News' Devin Dwyer and Isabella Murray

Donald Trump spoke from Mar-a-Lago in Florida moments after the arguments concluded at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington.

The former president largely focused his criticism on President Joe Biden, but briefly addressed what transpired at the nation's high court.

"In watching the Supreme Court today, I thought it was a very beautiful process," he said. "I hope that democracy in this country will continue because right now we have a very, very tough situation with all of these radical left ideas."

Justice Samuel Alito, questioning the Colorado solicitor general, brought up the possibility of other states retaliating and excluding another candidate from their ballot.

Shannon Stevenson sought to downplay those concerns.

"I think we have to have faith in our system that people will follow their election processes appropriately," she said. "That they will take realistic views of what insurrection is under the 14th Amendment. Courts will review those decisions. This court may review some of them. But I don't think that this court should take those threats too seriously in its resolution of this case."

Shannon Stevenson, the Colorado solicitor general, is now representing Secretary of State Jena Griswold. She is making the case that Colorado has the power, under state election code, to disqualify candidates who are ineligible to assume the office they’re seeking.

"Nothing in the Constitution strips the states of their power to direct presidential elections in this way," she said in her opening. "This case was handled capably and efficiently by the Colorado courts under a process that we've used to decide ballot changes for more than century. And as everyone agrees, the court now has the record that needs to to resolve these important issues."

Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked whether the high court should think about democracy when interpreting Section 3, specifically the right of the people to elect candidates of their choice.

Murray, in a lengthy answer, gave an impassioned argument that this case is at the heart of protecting democracy.

"Constitutional safeguards are for the purpose of safeguarding our democracy, not just for the next election cycle but for generations to come," he said. "And second, Section 3 is designed to protect our democracy in that very way. The framers of Section 3 knew from painful experience that those who had violently broken their oaths to the Constitution couldn't be trusted to hold power again again because they could dismantle our Constitution democracy from within."

"President Trump can go ask Congress to give him amnesty by a two-thirds vote but, unless he does that, our Constitution protects us from insurrectionists," he continued.

"This case illustrates the danger of refusing to apply Section 3 as written because the reason we're here is that President Trump tried to disenfranchise 80 million Americans who voted against him and the Constitution doesn't require that he be given another chance."