A change of venue can be illuminating.  For the last four weeks, I have been living in Boca Raton, Florida to support my mother’s recovery from a serious, but not life-threatening medical condition.  I need not tell you South Florida might as well be halfway around the globe from its Northeast counterpart.  This morning, however, I found a unexpected strand of connective tissue.  It was triggered by an article on CNBC.COM titled, “Musk’s role leading DOGE qualifies as ‘continuing and permanent,’ federal judge says.”

D.C. District judge Tanya Chutkan refused to dismiss a suit filed by 14 state attorneys general challenging Elon Musk’s role in the dismantling of various federal agencies and programs.  The plaintiffs claim Musk “lacked the legal authority to make sweeping cuts and other changes to the federal government because he is not a Senate-confirmed officer of the government, and DOGE was never authorized by Congress.”

My first instinct?  I wondered what my representative Aaron Bean, co-chair of the congressional DOGE caucus, might have to say about this latest development, especially since he and two other Florida men (Cory Mills and Byron Daniels) had introduced House Resolution H.R. 2006, codifying the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency and enumerating its authorities.  One would think Bean might use Chutkan’s finding to bolster passage of the bill.  Of course, one would be wrong.  Crickets from the distinguished congressman from Amelia Island.

However, as I researched Bean’s view of the pending case, I stumbled on an unexpected factoid.  For the last month, I was temporarily residing in the congressional district represented by Jared Moskowitz, the first Democrat to join the DOGE caucus.  On December 3, 2024, Moskowitz released the following statement.

Today. I will join the Congressional DOGE Caucus, because I believe that streamlining government processes and reducing ineffective government spending should not be a partisan issue. I’ve been clear that there are ways we can reorganize our government to make it work better for the American people.

At the time, he and the other Democrat who joined the caucus (Val Doyle/4th district of Oregon) were roundly criticized for legitimizing the effort though both felt it was essential for someone not beholden to Trump to represent “working Americans.”  However, on February 5, 2025 Doyle resigned from the caucus, stating:

It is impossible for us to do that important work when unelected billionaire Elon Musk and his lackeys are set on burning down the government—and the law—to line his own pockets and rip off Americans across the country who depend on government services to live with dignity.

Moskowitz continues to be listed as a member of the caucus.  However, during a May 14 interview with Politico, he declared:

The DOGE caucus is dead. It’s defunct. We haven’t met in months. We only had two total meetings in five months. And we weren’t involved at all in anything [happening at DOGE], which Elon was in charge of. Zero. Zilch. Nada. [Musk] did it all on his own.

Quite a contrast to what Aaron Beans tells his constituents through a never ending string of photo ops and interviews on right-wing media.  And what happened to Bean’s effort to pass H.R. 2006 which would have given DOGE the legal authority to address the issues it claims are its mission.  The bill was introduced on March 10, 2025.  Then, as Jared Moskowitz would say, “Zero, Zilch. Nada.”

Surely, there is a Jared Moskowitz or Val Doyle in NE Florida who could better represent us.  For the record, Doyle has held more town hall meetings around the country in the last month than Aaron Bean has held in his own district in two and half years.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Your family and mine and all other animals have agreed to forget their differences and live in peace and friendship from now on forever. Just think of it! I simply cannot wait to embrace you! Do come down, dear friend, and let us celebrate the joyful event.

~”The Fox and the Cock”/Aesop

This fable is often cited as the origin of the metaphor “a fox in the henhouse.”  Under Donald Trump, the United States government can best be described as a nation of vulpine officials who now inhabit the chicken coops we call federal agencies, thus the title of today’s post.  Consider the two most recent examples.

Example #1: As widely reported, Trump announced the Qatar government would gift a $400 million luxury Boeing 747-8 jet to the United States to replace the current plane that serves as Air Force One.  At the end of Trump’s second term, the plane would be decommissioned and turned over to the Trump Presidential Library Museum Foundation.  Keep in mind, “decommissioned” does not mean scrapped, and donating it to a museum or library does not automatically make it a permanent, non-functional exhibit.

To push back against bipartisan concerns about the transaction, Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memo explaining why the gift did not constitute a violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.  According to the New York Times:

Ms. Bondi had personally signed a Justice Department memo blessing the plan as lawful, although it had been drafted and cleared by lawyers in the department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

However, as pointed out prior to Bondi’s confirmation hearing last January, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, raised questions about potential conflicts of interests associated with the nominee’s previous employment as a registered lobbyist with Ballard Associates, including:

• Lobbying Congress on behalf of Qatar: As a FARA-registered lobbyist, Bondi lobbied Congress on behalf of Qatar, earning $115,000 per month.

Example #2:   On Friday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a press release announcing it had reached a settlement allowing Rare Breed Triggers, a company that makes what they call a “forced-reset trigger,” more commonly referred to as a bump stock that makes a semi-automatic weapon fire at speeds closer to those of a machine gun, to resume selling this product.  “Settlement” is a misnomer since there appear to be no conditions under which DOJ dropped the law suit.  In support of the action, Attorney General Bondi added to the volume of Trump administration NewSpeak:

This Department of Justice believes that the 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right. And we are glad to end a needless cycle of litigation with a settlement that will enhance public safety.

I anxiously await the AG’s explanation of how Rare Breed Trigger contributed to “public safety” when the weapon of chose for a future mass shooting includes one of their “forced-release triggers.”

The press release did not include the following information.  Trump White House counsel David Warrington, represented Rare Breed Triggers when it sued the federal government following a federal ban on this category of aftermarket modifiers that enhanced the lethal potential of semi-automatic weapons.

Which raises an interesting possibility.  Were Qatari sheiks and the owners of Rare Breed Triggers that smart?  In anticipation of a second Trump presidency, did they pull individuals into their sphere whom they believed would be part of the new administration?  Did the Qataris see that far enough into the future when Pam Bondi refused to prosecute Trump University during her tenure as Florida to hire her as lobbyist?  Did Rare Breed Triggers correctly bet that the man who represented Trump in the January 6 federal case might be the next White House legal counsel?  If so, what can we learn from them?

“The Fox and the Cox” need not be an irreversible omen of things to come? We too often forget that the fox in Aesop’s fable does not carry the day.  From his perch in a tree, the cock warns the fox there are two dogs approaching him.   Thinking he has become the prey, the fox suggests that perhaps the hounds have not heard the news how all species will henceforth cohabitate in peace, and he quickly flees.  The cock, having fabricated the presence of the dogs, smiles, thus the moral, “The trickster is easily tricked.”

The resistance to this unfortunate march toward American authoritarianism and oligarchy could also come out on top by emulating the cock, using the Trump administration’s own messaging to turn the predator into the prey.  One example is the Newsweek report that, since neither of his parents were citizens when he was born, Secretary of State Marco Rubio would not be a U.S. citizen if Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship had been in place on May 28, 1971.  Surely, Rubio is not the only such case.  Where is the database of prominent Americans–scientists, orators and authors, artists, business leaders, educators, philanthropists–who, had Trump and Homeland Security chief Kristi Noem been in power at the time of their births, would be plying their trades in places other than the U.S., or worse, rotting in a foreign prison?

Aesop might phrase the challenge differently.  Will this chapter of American history end with Trump as the scorpion who stings the frog because he is unable to overcome his true nature or the fox who is easily finessed because he lacks the foresight to see how his words and deeds can be used against him?

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

But surely, he remembers the breaches in national security during the first 100 days of his new administration, even though his answer to every question about the release of classified information about bombing raids in Yemen over unsecured phone apps is, “I know nothing about that.”  Unfortunately, the Qataris have no similar lapses in memory.  Plus, they are too impatient to wait for one of Trump’s useful idiots to create the opportunity to listen in on privileged conversations via unsecured iPhone apps.  The solution?  Turn the primary means of a president’s transportation into a private SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) for which the target beneficiary is a single entity, Qatari State Security (QSS).  And do it in such a way, a clueless president of the United States believes this counter-intelligence coup is a magnanimous symbol of mutual respect and friendship.

Do not be surprised if the fuselage of the gifted plane includes a facsimile of the following banner hoisted above Bush 43 during his Iraqi victory speech aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.  There is one catch.  It only appears when the QSS is gathering classified information.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra is preserved from the possibility of error on doctrine “initially given to the apostolic Church and handed down in Scripture and tradition”.

~Wikipedia

The importance of this doctrine was never more evident than the recent conclave to pick Pope Francis’  successor.  Changes in the Church sometimes occur when a Pope’s thinking, not unlike all of us, evolves based on new experiences and new information.  However, more often, alterations in Catholic doctrine occur based on the priorities of the man who ascends to the papacy, perspectives developed prior to his election by the College of Cardinals.

The Cardinals sent a very strong message to the global Catholic community, and I believe especially to American Catholics, that authoritarianism is leading Catholics down a path farther away from Jesus’ teachings as laid out in the New Testament including the Beatitudes.  Anointing Robert Prevost as the Bishop of Rome was less about his American birth than his experience, similar to that of his predecessor, serving the people of Peru and his commitment to social justice and other New Testament teachings such as welcoming the stranger and caring for the poor or weak.  I have a feeling, Leo XIV’s rebuke of J.D. Vance’s claim that Americans should prioritize love to family before that of immigrants is not the last time this new Pope will begin a sentence, “J.D. Vance is wrong…”

But, as usual, that’s not what I came here to talk about.  There is another, equally important doctrine of infallibility, the one applied to the Supreme Court of the United States.  If put to paper, it might be defined as follows.

Supreme Court infallibility is a dogma of the founding fathers which states that, in virtue of their promise of justice for all, the Court when it speaks ex officio is preserved from the possibility of error on doctrine “initially given by virtue of ratification of the U.S. Constitution and and the tradition of legal precedence”.

As with the papacy, directives of the court may change via evolutionary thinking or, as more evident in the past decade, changes is membership. This phenomenon is not new and favors no ideology.   There has been movement to the left as evidenced by overriding Plessy v. Ferguson with Brown v. Board of Education.  And to the right, undercutting Roe v. Wade with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.  As Americans we have a right to disagree with the Court and bring cases before it which might lead to future changes.  But until the re-election of Donald Trump, there was general agreement that federal, state and local governments and law enforcement agencies were bound by Supreme Court rulings.

Not so any more.  When asked by NBC correspondent Kristen Welker if he was duty-bound to uphold the Constitution, which in Article III delegates the authority to interpret law to SCOTUS, Trump replied, “I don’t know.” As pointed out by almost every legal expert, did Trump forget that just last January 20th, he raised his right hand and pledged “to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States?”  The interview seemed to create a permission structure for Trump’s underlings to jump on this “civic ignorance” bandwagon.  Just yesterday, senior advisor Steven Miller suggested that the administration might waive the right of individuals to a writ of habeas corpus, a principle dating back to the Magna Carta and explicitly authorized under Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution.  To make matters worse, Miller suggested the administration’s decision depended on whether “the courts do the right thing.”

Which is why the doctrine of SCOTUS infallibility may be more important than papal infallibility.  Sorry Steven, according the Constitution and the 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court CANNOT DO THE WRONG THING.  It decides what is right and wrong.  How would Miller feel if a Maryland state trooper walked into the Oval Office and arrested the president for an alleged criminal act.  Miller would yell at the top of his lungs,  “BUT THE SUPREME COURT GRANTED IMMUNITY TO A SITTING PRESIDENT.”  Yes, it did.  But contrary to Miller’s authoritarian wet dreams, SCOTUS infallibility also applies if a majority of the justices denies you and Trump the right to suspend writs of habeas corpus to detained immigrants, even if you allege they are criminals.

Bottom line?  Failure to accept an edict of an infallible Pope may, as written in the Book of Revelations, land you in Hades for eternity, assuming such a place exists.  In contrast, Trump and Miller want you to believe there is no equivalent if they violate a ruling by an infallible Supreme Court.  Instead, they profess that the people who will end up in Hell are those denied a writ of habeas corpus.  And their Hell is real, concentration camp-like prisons in El Salvador and possibly Libya.

POSTSCRIPT

How ironic that the two challenges to SCOTUS infallibility in my lifetime were voiced by the two most corrupt occupants of the Oval Office who ran on law and order platforms.  In an interview with David Frost, Richard Nixon famously said, “When a president does it…it means it is not illegal.”  And now Trump suggests he is not bound by the Constitution or SCOTUS decisions.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP