At the beginning of this year, I speculated that by 2026, either Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas—or perhaps both—might step down, potentially allowing President Trump to fill those positions before the midterm elections.
Recent information indicates this prediction could be on point, especially with reports that Alito is thinking about resigning. This prompted us to explore who might be seen as possible replacements.
One major concern is whether we should have a Supreme Court justice who leans left on fundamental issues like the sanctity of life.
Honestly, replacing Alito won’t be straightforward. Alito is considered one of the most outstanding justices of this century, and his successor really can’t be just an average judge with a shaky track record. The stakes are significant.
This is where certain potential nominees make me anxious. Take Judge Andrew Oldham, for instance. Trump appointed him to the Supreme Court in 2020 for valid reasons. Our constitutional system can’t afford to risk “meh” candidates.
Oldham, who used to be the general counsel for Texas Governor Greg Abbott and now serves on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, has an unsettling record for anyone hoping for another Alito.
Let’s discuss his stance on life issues.
Alito authored the pivotal majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade, widely regarded as one of the most detrimental rulings in American history. In contrast, Oldham’s record reflects a different perspective. For example, in 2000, under President Clinton, the FDA classified pregnancy as a “disease” to expedite the approval of abortion pills as a “solution.” A few years later, a district judge appointed by Trump correctly dismissed this interpretation, and a Trump-appointed circuit judge agreed. However, Oldham was the first circuit judge to uphold the Clinton-era FDA viewpoint on procedural grounds.
The American Family Association criticized this decision as “stunningly weak,” and the Supreme Court ultimately reversed it 6-3 in 2024, validating those concerns.
Why would we want a justice aligned with the left on such critical issues?
But that’s not the only issue.
The AFA also deemed Oldham’s stance on COVID-19 vaccination mandates as “lax.” His views were highlighted when he stated that schools didn’t need to enforce mask-wearing, not due to their ineffectiveness but because alternative safety measures, such as vaccines, could be used instead. This opinion was so weak that not a single other judge supported it.
When it comes to gender ideology, Oldham has supported the Biden administration’s mandate requiring gender transition procedures for minors, disregarding any objections from medical professionals. He had an opportunity to join other Trump-appointed judges in opposing this controversial policy but chose not to.
His immigration record raises additional alarms.
Oldham failed to back a Trump-appointed district judge who ruled against allowing undocumented immigrants to access in-state tuition, which should have disqualified him from serious consideration.
Fortunately, the Trump administration’s Justice Department launched a lawsuit last year to end this practice in Texas, where Oldham’s former boss is governor. Ultimately, Texas conceded after this federal challenge. Now, leftist groups are attempting to revive these controversial policies, citing Oldham’s past rulings as a basis.
It’s almost unreal.
Oldham also ruled against Abbott when the governor declared a crisis at the southern border, indicating he may not be poised to overturn Plyler v. Doe, another significant precedent that impacts illegal immigrants. I mean, does it sound like he’s ready for a radical shift?
Currently, Oldham appears to be reshaping his image, possibly sensing a shift in his future. There are reports suggesting he is adopting a more conservative persona, but, frankly, it hasn’t gone smoothly; he’s frequently overturned by a Supreme Court known for its conservative leanings.
That’s what happens when ambition overshadows genuine principles.
Interestingly, Oldham once even advocated for Elizabeth Warren to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when Obama was in office. Now he’s trying to position himself as Alito’s natural successor. Such shifting ideologies are understandably worrisome. When one’s ambition drives their career more than steadfast beliefs, it’s challenging to determine their true stance.
With Alito, there was never that uncertainty.
When replacing a significant figure, you need someone equally substantial. Oldham, however, doesn’t seem to fit that bill. He might have justifications for some of his past actions, but perhaps Trump can find a better candidate.
This could be Trump’s final opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice. For a president known for his grounded approach to choose someone less effective than a justice his predecessor appointed would be a major misstep.
