In recent discussions, the term “brain rot” has been applied to various contexts, including large language models (LLMs) and long COVID. It’s equally applicable to describe the pervasive corruption within the American legal system during the Trump 2.0 era.
Previously, I’ve delved into the U.S. Supreme Court’s unconventional approach to deciding cases without formal rulings. This method disrupts the traditional channels of legal communication that typically guide lower courts.
Consequently, judges at the lower court level, particularly those aligned with the Republican party, may feel pressured to engage in sontaku—the Japanese concept of “obeying in advance” or adhering to unspoken directives—an idea I’ve explored in the context of Trump 2.0 before.
Today, let’s trace the historical threads that illustrate the transformation of the American legal framework into one riddled with corruption.
I’ll also include updates on previous topics we’ve examined, including the Maine U.S. Senate race, the New York City mayoral primary, and the deep state ties of Palantir.
Legal Corruption as Brain Rot
With the erosion of established American legal methods honed over centuries, lower court judges are left to speculate on legal interpretations. Some savvy individuals may attempt to arrive at outcomes favorable to Trump, yet this approach lacks the sophistication of a well-structured system.
This dysfunction is not happenstance; it’s the culmination of decades of work to foster legal corruption. A recent Slate article reflects on Justice Anthony Kennedy’s pivotal role in this shift.
On the bench, Kennedy developed a reputation for calmness and pragmatism. Unlike Reagan’s failed nominees Robert Bork and Douglas H. Ginsburg, Kennedy’s nomination was controversy-free. He was perceived as a “nice guy,” in stark contrast to Bork’s confrontational style and Ginsburg’s youthful indiscretions. Chief Justice Roberts initially drafted a narrow opinion to secure a victory for Citizens United. However, Kennedy, never shying away from sweeping statements, proposed a far-reaching decision that aimed to overturn landmark rulings like Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC, which had upheld restrictions on corporate political spending.
This was the draft that revolutionized everything. Roberts, impressed with Kennedy’s proposal, scrapped his own opinion and allowed Kennedy to craft the majority opinion. Rather than merely refining McCain-Feingold, this decision created an expansive gateway for massive monetary donations to pour in. Justice David Souter, incensed, began drafting an opposing dissent, condemning the majority for fabricating a new question to legally justify an overarching decision. Before this dissent could be published, however, Souter announced his retirement.
Subsequently, Roberts astounded court watchers by pausing the decision process. He ordered a rare reargument and prompted both sides to address an entirely different constitutional question: Did corporations have a First Amendment right to unrestricted spending in elections as long as the expenditures were independent and not directly coordinated with candidates? By indicating a desire to tackle such sweeping constitutional issues, the court was setting the stage for a transformative ruling.
When the court reconvened in September 2009, Justice Sonia Sotomayor had taken Souter’s place, and Olson returned with broader arguments. This case had transcended its original scope—it was now about whether corporations held an inherent right to unlimited spending in elections. The government’s attorney tried to maintain focus on a film funded by anonymous donors released during a federal campaign. However, the conservative majority was already lost in hypotheticals about book banning and free speech.
This brings us to a significant 2015 TIME piece by former U.S. Senator Gary Hart, referenced in Thomas Neuburger’s Augean Stables post that we featured recently.
Here’s what Gary Hart proposed about a decade ago:
Corruption, from Plato to Aristotle, denotes actions that prioritize narrow personal interests over the public good. Such corruption doesn’t require bribes or vote-buying; it emerges whenever self-interest supersedes collective interest in governance. By this definition, can anyone truly deny that our republic is corrupt? There have been financial scandals throughout history, but never has the U.S. government been so blatantly committed to special interests, including earmarks, side deals, and log-rolling.
Recent events have effectively legalized Watergate. Who would have imagined that, forty years post the biggest political scandal in U.S. history, the Supreme Court would rule the practices that financed it as legitimate?
The Citizens United decision embodies this shocking reality. Betting on when political funds will sway towards those skilled in manipulation seems inevitable. It’s clear that the vast resources flowing from campaign donations will likely end up in the hands of those prepared to exploit the system in illegal ways.
Neuburger expands on this:
Corruption is defined as “self-interest placed above the common good.” For instance, certain college football referees blatantly favor one team over another, evidencing corrupt behavior. While they may not be in it for financial gain, they could be motivated by animus against the opposing team or nostalgic contentment for the home team’s victories.
Based on this definition, the Supreme Court has acted corruptly since at least 2000. Notably, the legal analysis surrounding Bush v. Gore fails to uphold the broader interest; Republican justices simply elevated a Republican to the presidency without any grounds for fairness. This extends to further questionable rulings regarding campaign finance, such as Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo, alongside First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti. Siding to benefit personal loyalties has led the Court into corruption by definition.
Next, consider the infamous Powell memo, discussed in a 2021 Slate article:
Eugene B. Sydnor, the education director for the national Chamber of Commerce, requested an action plan from Lewis Powell, then head of the American Bar Association. Powell had previously resisted anti-tobacco movements and was frustrated by consumer protection efforts led by Ralph Nader. In a lengthy 1971 memo titled “Attack on American Free Enterprise System,” Powell detailed how corporations could unite not only to combat regulations but also to infiltrate key institutions—universities, media outlets, and courts—to sway public sentiment toward pro-business agendas. His passionate prose indicates this was a personal initiative for him: “The time has come—indeed, it is long overdue—for American business to rally against those who seek to destroy it.”
Five decades later, that vision has materialized. A right-wing dark money network, supported by affluent figures over the years, has funded think tanks, media, legal organizations, and politicians to advocate for pro-business interests. Investigative journalists like Jane Mayer have shown that this strategy has been alarmingly effective: megacorporations now endure fewer regulations, enjoy tax breaks, and exert considerable influence over policies perceived as threatening their profits, such as climate controls and healthcare reforms.
Many leaders within this movement were influenced directly by Powell’s memo, distributed among Chamber of Commerce members and later publicized after his appointment to the Supreme Court. His ideas catalyzed the formation of various conservative organizations, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Manhattan Institute, that persist in wielding significant influence today.
The Deep State Roots of Peter Thiel and Palantir
While tracing these historical connections, let’s also examine Whitney Webb’s insights about Palantir’s origins in the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan Administration:
Whitney Webb: John Poindexter was among the highest-ranking advisers to Reagan, later indicted for his role in Iran-Contra. Moreover, he is often called the “Godfather of modern surveillance.” His early work in the post-9/11 era pioneered an initiative within DARPA known as Total Information Awareness. Following the Reagan administration, Poindexter took roles in various tech companies that foreshadowed what Palantir and the Total Information Awareness program would eventually achieve. These contractors aimed to devise predictive analytics to forecast terrorist actions long before the 9/11 attacks, at which point the demand for such technology surged.
Upon publicizing Total Information Awareness, there was an immediate outcry due to concerns about constitutional rights and mass surveillance. Mainstream media highlighted the controversial nature of the program, stating it would combat terrorism by creating a climate of fear and suspicion among American citizens.
Facing severe backlash, the program underwent a name change to Terrorism Information Awareness in 2003, attempting to present an image less associated with extensive surveillance. However, this rebranding did not alter the program’s operations, which were still geared towards monitoring ordinary Americans. Notably, Peter Thiel established Palantir during this name change, and as the company evolved, it was revealed that he, along with co-founder Alex Karp, reached out to Poindexter through Richard Perle—a prominent neoconservative figure—to privatize the initiative. Their strategy was clear: remove it from public scrutiny by repositioning it as a private enterprise.
The Role of Terror in ICE Actions
The idea that Total Information Awareness would “fight terrorism by terrifying U.S. citizens” resonates with a ProPublica report revealing how Palantir is now utilized by ICE:
Call recordings obtained by ProPublica captured the panic among residents witnessing masked individuals ambushing people and forcing them into unmarked vehicles. Comprised of plainclothes agents refusing to identify themselves, these actions incited fear, with several community members alleging that they were witnessing kidnappings.
One caller reported: “He’s bleeding,” describing a scene where someone was pulled from a car wash and assaulted before being thrown into a van marked as ICE-less. Another inquired, “What kind of police operates without license plates?” prompting murmurings of, “Should we just flee?”
Deluded Centrists
We’ve been examining various facets of delusion to better understand the motivations driving the ruling elite during the Trump era. Aurelian’s recent piece, “Forever Again: Why the Time is Always Now,” provides some pertinent insights:
Pundits often fail to recognize that, even during crises, individuals act with less than rational intent driven by conscious motivations. This makes for a simplistic understanding of political actors, as it leans heavily on theoretical models that reduce behavior to economic factors, which historically began with Marxism but haven’t ended with it. Moreover, many leaders are incapable of effectively steering contemporary challenges due to a lack of expertise, leaving them operating in a distorted sense of reality.
This reflection resonates especially with American Democrats, particularly those in centrist positions who seem detached from the evolving political climate.
Centrists Trapped in an Outdated Eternal Now
An analysis from Ettingermentum News titled “The Center is Choking” explores how these centrists maintain ongoing factional conflicts despite minimal substantive disagreements. Their focus has shifted strictly toward tactics, blaming leftist missteps for the current state of American politics, which has become a familiar yet worn argument.
The looming question is: how can the Democratic Party’s centrists sustain their narrative amidst continuous change? In the wake of Trump’s victory, they quickly shaped a narrative blaming the left for the failures and went on to call for a “holy war” against progressive factions, sidelining critical discussions about necessary reforms.
Even now, they stubbornly adhere to the same strategies of the past, ignoring substantial shifts that have occurred since the last election cycle, which undermines their arguments. Their reluctance to adapt has left them disconnected from the contemporary political landscape, seeking to relitigate grievances rooted in previous elections.
David Sirota warned of this trend in 2020, articulating how Democrats were misleading voters into believing that once Trump was defeated, they could return to an idyllic state of normalcy:
In essence, the message promised that if Trump was ousted, American politics would return to a comfortable status quo, revitalizing a political elite disconnected from the real struggles of working-class Americans. The Obama years, while devoid of sensational scandals, were marred by systemic negligence toward the working class—fueling the very sentiments that allowed names like Trump to rise. The call to simply “go back to brunch” fails to address the current realities many face.
Ian Welsh elucidates why America’s elite remains so unmoored from the larger populace:
American elites are insulated from the shared experiences that build empathy, as generational social mobility plummets. With no real interactions with hardship, they are unaware of the struggles faced by the average American. Their isolation fosters an absence of acknowledgment towards the necessary changes that could foster a more inclusive society.
Gerontocrat Candidate at Eternal Brunch in Maine
In recent developments surrounding the Democratic Senate primary, initial polling indicates that the impending candidacy of 77-year-old Governor Janet Mills may not be settling well with voters:
UNH poll | 10/16-10/21
Governor Janet Mills approval
Disapprove 55%
Approve 43% https://t.co/NnOlxNCfyi pic.twitter.com/hs097zRRhu— Politics & Poll Tracker 📡 (@PollTracker2024) October 23, 2025
Ryan Grim further emphasized this situation:
If there were a left-wing strategist as adept as Chris Rufo, they would advise that defending Platner is crucial not only for winning the Senate seat but also strategically for… https://t.co/ioIPFlygT8
— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) October 23, 2025
Cuomo Goes Out on a Slop Note
Andrew Cuomo is making questionable decisions in his current campaign:
Andrew Cuomo’s campaign just posted—and then deleted—this AI-generated ad depicting “criminals for Zohran Mamdani.”
Features a Black man in a keffiyeh shoplifting, an abuser, a trespasser, a trafficker, a drug dealer, and a drunk driver all declaring support for Mamdani. pic.twitter.com/kDR4UaMAvk
— Prem Thakker (@prem_thakker) October 23, 2025
Campaigns Just Fun and Games in a Post-Constitutional Republic
A recent New York Times article underscores the diminishing relevance of U.S. Senate elections:
Since taking office, Trump and his aides have swiftly usurped congressional authority, often facing little resistance from GOP leaders. While their policies threaten rural America’s economic well-being, congressional Republicans have remained disturbingly silent regarding Trump’s unilateral tariff impositions, ignoring their constitutional role in such actions. Additionally, the administration has embarked on military operations without congressional consent, all while GOP lawmakers refrain from scrutinizing these actions.
Trump told Senate Republicans during a White House lunch, “We don’t need to pass any more bills. We got everything in that piece.”
Political Blender Still in Effect
The implications of right-wing opposition to genocide continue to evolve, as seen in recent tweets involving Tucker Carlson and U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene:
I bet that not a single Western diplomat in DC wrote a cable in 2021 predicting the turn against Israel within the American Right and MAGA.
Yet, the signs were all there.
But we operate in a paradigm that doesn’t allow us to understand or predict deep political change.
Rep.… pic.twitter.com/icAJc0tPJz
— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) October 23, 2025
Interestingly, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has emerged as a notable critic of Trump’s actions in Venezuela:
Two individuals survived one of the recent boat strikes. They were not detained, not checked for drugs, and were sent back to their home country. If the strike was intended to interdict drugs, yet the survivors weren’t even… pic.twitter.com/S1QXew1ws5
— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) October 22, 2025
The Personal is Political for Senator Chris Murphy
In examining how personal motives intertwine with politics, a recent piece from Ettingermentum News identifies Chris Murphy as a leading candidate to succeed Chuck Schumer as Senate Minority Leader:
Seeking more than just survival in the Senate, Murphy has taken it upon himself to address America’s political issues with a new approach. He advocates for economic populism paired with moderation on cultural matters, expressing that the social fabric has been eroded by longstanding neoliberal policies. After personal upheavals, he seems intent on finding stability through a reinvigorated political identity. Nonetheless, while this appears a break from Schumer’s conventional stance, skepticism remains regarding its impact.
Meanwhile, Bari Weiss, the recently appointed editor-in-chief at CBS News, is drawing attention for her heightened security:
Weiss has been seen accompanied by six bodyguards in New York City due to safety concerns—an unusual sight for a news executive. Sources indicated that her security detail was implemented following specific threats.
Amid this, billionaire Ari Emanuel is reportedly gaining influence at CBS Sports:
The recent partnership between Paramount and TKO has restructured the American combat sports landscape. Moving all UFC events to Paramount+, this agreement marks a significant shift in control from ESPN to Paramount, raising questions about the future of combat sports broadcasting.
Lastly, Stephen A. Smith, an outspoken commentator, linked recent gambling-related arrests to Trump’s influence, suggesting a chaotic political climate:
“Trump is coming… He’s not playing,” Smith declared, implying that the ongoing investigations may just be the beginning of heightened scrutiny involving sports and politics.
In conclusion, the systemic issues reflected in today’s political landscape—whether through the corruption of the legal system, the manipulation of media narratives, or the disconnection between elites and the populace—underscore a critical moment in American history that requires scrutiny and reflection. As we navigate these complexities, it remains essential to discern the broader implications of these developments on society as a whole.
