Adolph Hitler did it; Josef Stalin did it; Vladimir Putin does it with aplomb. One way or another, all dictators surround themselves with sycophants, use them to do their dirty work until they are of no further use or make an unforgivable mistake, and then dump them. Sometimes they’re allowed to escape with their lives . . . what’s left of them.

Being an avid admirer of “strong men,” Donald Trump operates on the same wave length, and always has; he was, after all, the guy who delighted in telling people “You’re fired!” on his reality TV show, and in the operation of his many business undertakings. Why stop now, just because he’s in the White House and his “executive orders” run counter to the core principles, the laws, and the urgent needs of the nation he swore to protect and defend?

His two most recent victims, of course, have been former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi — both of whom have been shown the door because the tasks he assigned to them backfired when they turned out to be so blatantly illegal that even his rubber-stamp Congress could no longer look away.

And now that he’s on a roll — and since, to the superstitious, bad things usually happen in threes — we should probably be looking for at least one more head to roll in the near future. In that spirit, I have decided to place my bet (but no money) on D. John Sauer, Solicitor General of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Until this week, he was not a headliner in the same category as, say, Pete Hegseth, Bobby Kennedy, or Pam Bondi’s acting replacement, Todd Blanche. But Sauer was the unlucky person in the position of having to plead Trump’s case before the Supreme Court concerning birthright citizenship.

And he screwed up . . . royally.

I won’t attempt to go into the legal intricacies of the disastrous Dred Scott decision (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)); the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (ratified in 1868) that rightly overturned that earlier Supreme Court ruling; the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924; or the Nationality Act of 1940 (54 Stat. 1137). Suffice it to say that, when Sauer stood before the Court on April 1st to argue Trump’s contention that not all children born in the United States are automatically entitled to become U.S. citizens, he was unprepared to tackle the thorny issue of Native Americans.

Briefly, Trump and his attorneys have maintained that children of native tribal members are not U.S. citizens in accordance with a 19th-century ruling of the Supreme Court (Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)), in which the Court held that Native Americans were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States as specified by the 14th Amendment, because of their stated allegiance to their respective tribes.

And on Wednesday, when Justice Neil Gorsuch — a Trump appointee — questioned Sauer on the logical consequences Trump’s theory would have on Native Americans, all hell broke loose. Gorsuch asked whether, under Trump’s proposed test for birthright citizenship, Native Americans born today would automatically be citizens, Sauer at first said:

“I think so. I mean, obviously they’ve been granted citizenship by statute” — referring to the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (43 Stat. 253). [Ashleigh Fields, The Hill, April 1, 2026.]

Gorsuch then told Sauer to set aside the statute, and asked, “Do you think they’re birthright citizens?” — to which Sauer, doing a verbal 180-degree turn, answered:

“No, I think the clear understanding that everybody agrees in the congressional debates is that the children of tribal Indians are not birthright citizens.” [Id.]

But Gorsuch, obviously perceiving the corner into which Sauer had painted himself, pressed for further clarification on the basis of the domicile of the parents, to which Sauer reversed himself again, responding:

“I think so, on our test. They’re lawfully domiciled here. I have to think that through, but that’s my reaction.” [Id.]

Somehow, Sauer seemed to have forgotten that “lawful domicile” is one of the cornerstones of Trump’s theory of qualification for birthright citizenship.

“Holy whiplash, Batman!!!”

At that point, Justice Gorsuch jumped in and said, “I’ll take the yes” [id.], thus rescuing Sauer from further embarrassment.

*. *. *

Okay, that’s a long explanation for my initial suggestion that the Solicitor General may be the next administration bigwig to exit the scene. But — while I wasn’t present and thus am not sure of the exact timing — it appears from reports I have read that it may have been at that point, or shortly thereafter, that Trump beat a hasty retreat from the Court, where he had inexplicably chosen to be present during the oral arguments. People who were there said he did not look happy.

Perhaps Sauer will be luckier than Pam Bondi, and survive the humiliation — especially if the Court should somehow rule in the administration’s favor (which, in my opinion, would be a horrific perversion of justice). We shall see.

And in the meantime, we can entertain ourselves by keeping an eye on the White House’s revolving door to see who actually will be next.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
4/4/26