'Bonkers': Trump appointee skewered by expert after uncorking 'contortionist opinion'

A legal scholar and law professor roasted a judge appointed by President Donald Trump, referring to his "contortionist opinion" the Supreme Court is reviewing over mail-in ballots as "bonkers."

Richard L. Hasen skewered the 5th Circuit opinion written by Andrew Oldham in an analysis piece for Slate published Tuesday. Hasen said the judge appears to want Trump's attention — and is auditioning to be a future high court justice.

Hasen warned the case may disappoint Trump by failing to deliver the result he sought.

"Disagreeing with plain statutory text, statutory history, Supreme Court precedent, and the practice of many states, Judge Oldham’s opinion held that Mississippi violates federal law when it accepts ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrive within five days of the election. If the Supreme Court upholds the 5th Circuit in Watson v. Republican National Committee, 29 states and the District of Columbia would have to change their laws to require receipt of virtually all ballots by Election Day, aside from a small class of ballots including those from military and overseas voters," Hasen writes.

Trump has been obsessed with targeting mail-in ballots, "so it’s no surprise that one of the nation’s Trumpiest federal judges issued an opinion at odds with text, law, and practice to side against voters."

"Oldham’s contortionist opinion reaching a contrary result is especially rich coming from a judge purporting to apply textualism—looking at the meaning of the text as understood by an ordinary English reader at the time Congress passed the statute. By no stretch of the English language can an 'election' be the day that election officials receive ballots any more than an election is the day (a month or so after an election) when a state officially declares an election winner," Hasen argues.

And there's more of a motive behind Oldham's move and the "5th Circuit in the broader context of a war on voting."

"It is unsurprising that Oldham reached such a voter-hostile and Trump-friendly conclusion. Back in 2021, in the midst of the COVID pandemic, Oldham dissented from a 5th Circuit decision on whether it violated federal law—not Texas law—for Harris County, Texas, to allow drive-through voting in 2020, something very much appreciated by those who did not want to get sick when voting," Hasen added.

It all comes down to a Supreme Court opening expected in 2026.

"That dissent, like his majority opinion in Watson, seems written for an audience of one, Donald Trump, who I expect will get at least one more Supreme Court appointment next summer when either Justice Samuel Alito (for whom Oldham clerked) or Justice Clarence Thomas retires."