Q: Do any laws influence thinking?A: There is evidence that laws can influence thinking and moral attitudes in several ways:1. Changing perceptions of social norms: Laws can affect how people perceive social norms around certain behaviors. A study found that the introduction of lockdown laws during the COVID-19 pandemic helped correct misperceptions about prevailing social norms regarding social distancing measures.2. Shaping moral attitudes: Laws can influence moral attitudes by recharacterizing previously harmless behaviors as problematic, signaling moral approval for certain actions, or developing a reputation for justice. For example, anti-discrimination laws can change how people view discriminatory practices.3. Providing information: Laws can act as a source of information about prevailing social values, which in turn shapes people's thinking about what is socially acceptable or desirable.4. Affecting personal norms: Some studies have found that laws can shift personal norms and beliefs about the appropriateness of certain behaviors.5. Impacting thinking skills: One study found that education on the rule of law was associated with increases in students' thinking skills and self-assessment of adherence to the rule of law.6. Legitimacy and procedural justice: When the legal system is perceived as promoting justice and using fair procedures, people are more likely to internalize its principles and comply with laws in general.However, it's important to note that the effectiveness of laws in influencing thinking depends on various factors:
- Whether the law targets attitudes central to cultural identities
- The level of underlying consensus or disagreement about the behavior
- Whether the law aims to change the meaning of behaviors or just the behaviors themselves
- How well the law is communicated to the target group
Pragmatic politics focused on the public interest for those uncomfortable with America's two-party system and its way of doing politics. Considering the interface of politics with psychology, cognitive science, social behavior, morality and history.
Friday, July 5, 2024
Laws influence perceptions of reality and thinking
Thursday, July 4, 2024
Some poll data; Court decision fallout; Defending democracy; Thinking about the constitution
Republican Donald Trump has edged ahead of Democrat Joe Biden, 41% to 38%, in the aftermath of the candidates' rancorous debate last week, according to an exclusive USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll.
That narrow advantage has opened since the previous survey in May showed the two contenders tied, 37% to 37%.
The findings still signal a close contest, not a decisive lead. The difference in support and the shifts since the spring are within the polls' margins of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. The new survey of 1,000 registered voters was taken Friday through Sunday by landline and cell phone.
There was little change in the standing of third-party candidates, with independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr., at 8% and three others at about 1% each.
We respectfully submit this premotion letter seeking leave to file a motion to set aside the jury’s verdicts, pursuant to CPL § 330.30(1), based on today’s decision from the Supreme Court in Trump v. United States, 2024 WL 3237603. As explained below, the Trump decision confirmed the defense position that DANY [New York District Attorney] should not have been permitted to offer evidence at trial of President Trump’s official acts. We respectfully request until July 10, 2024 to submit a memorandum of law in support of the motion. Because of the complexity of the issues presented, President Trump does not object to an adjournment of the July 11, 2024 sentencing date in order to allow adequate time for full briefing, oral argument, and a decision. See People v. Turner, 222 A.D.2d 206, 207 (1st Dep’t 1995).By way of background, on March 7, 2024, President Trump filed a motion in limine to preclude evidence of his official acts based on the presidential immunity doctrine. In that filing, we objected to anticipated testimony from certain potential witnesses, evidence of President Trump’s social media posts and public statements, and a 2018 filing with the Office of Government Ethics (OGE). ....Under Trump, this official-acts evidence should never have been put before the jury. Consistent with arguments that we made before and during the trial, the Supreme Court held in Trump that President Trump “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.” 2024 WL 3237603, at *25. The presumption applies “unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’” Id. at *12 (quoting Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 750 (1982)). DANY cannot make that showing here.
Q: Does the constitution protect individual liberty by limiting government power, or does the constitution protect government power limiting individual liberty?A: The Constitution primarily protects individual liberty by limiting government power, not the other way around. This is a fundamental principle of American constitutional law and governance. Here's a breakdown of how the Constitution achieves this:1. Limited Government Powers: The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances and separation of powers, which diffuses and limits the power of the federal and state governments. This structure is designed to prevent any single branch or level of government from becoming too powerful and infringing on individual rights.2. Bill of Rights: The first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, explicitly protect specific individual liberties from government interference. These include freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly, the right to bear arms, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and due process rights, among others.3. Additional Constitutional Protections: Beyond the Bill of Rights, other parts of the Constitution also protect individual rights, such as the right to trial by jury in criminal cases (Article III) and protections in the Civil War Era Amendments like the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.4. Fundamental Rights: The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to protect certain fundamental rights, even when not explicitly enumerated in the text. This has expanded the scope of individual liberty protections over time.5. Restrictions on Government Action: Many constitutional provisions are framed as prohibitions on government action rather than grants of power to the government. For example, "Congress shall make no law..." in the First Amendment.The founders believed that protecting individual liberty from government overreach was crucial to the American experiment in self-governance. As Thomas Jefferson stated, "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse."
In summary, the Constitution's primary function regarding individual liberty is to limit government power in order to protect and preserve the rights and freedoms of individuals, not to empower the government to limit individual liberty.
Wednesday, July 3, 2024
Christian nationalism gets hyper-aggressive with public schools; Fighting kleptocratic tyranny
Tuesday, July 2, 2024
So, now what?
- Stay informed and engaged: Keep up with reliable news sources and fact-based information about threats to democracy. Understanding the issues is crucial for effective civic participation.
- Vote in all elections: Participate in local, state, and national elections. Free and fair elections are fundamental to democracy, so exercising your right to vote is essential.
- Support organizations defending democracy: Contribute time or resources to nonpartisan groups working to protect voting rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law.
- Speak out against authoritarianism: Use your voice to condemn antidemocratic actions and rhetoric. Share factual information to counter disinformation.
- Contact elected officials: Regularly communicate with representatives at all levels of government to express support for democratic principles and opposition to authoritarian policies.
- Volunteer as a poll worker or election observer: Help ensure the integrity of elections by participating directly in the electoral process.
- Engage in peaceful protest and civil discourse: Exercise your First Amendment rights to assemble and speak out in defense of democratic values.
- Build cross-ideological coalitions: Work with people across the political spectrum who share a commitment to democratic principles, setting aside partisan differences to defend core values.
- Support independent journalism: Subscribe to and share quality journalism that holds power to account and provides factual information.
- Educate others: Have conversations with friends, family, and community members about the importance of democratic norms and institutions.
- Participate in local government: Attend town halls, city council meetings, and other local government forums to stay engaged in community decision-making.
- Support civic education: Advocate for robust civics education in schools to ensure future generations understand and value democratic processes.
- Donate time or money to pro-democracy efforts
Monday, July 1, 2024
About Dem messaging
"Trump is all dominance, all the time”:New research reveals "his most formidable political asset"UC Berkeley professor M. Steven Fish explains the way Trump's "character defects manifest what looks like bravery"Political scientist M. Steven Fish believes that the Democratic Party’s inability, despite their many policy successes, to conclusively defeat the Republicans and the larger “conservative” movement and American neofascists, is rooted in much bigger and systematic failings. A professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley, Fish has appeared on BBC, CNN, and other major networks, and has published in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Foreign Policy, among others. His new book is “Comeback: Routing Trumpism, Reclaiming the Nation, and Restoring Democracy's Edge.”
In this conversation, Fish warns that Donald Trump and the other Republican leaders use a high-dominance approach to politics and communication that allows them to set the agenda, which in turn puts the Democrats, who tend to be more passive and consensus-oriented, in a consistently weak position of reaction and defense. It is this failure of messaging and leadership style that has largely made the (white) working class so attracted to the Republicans and Trumpism.
Fish counsels the Democrats to learn from and model their behavior on such high-dominance liberal leaders as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who acted and spoke with force, clarity, moral vision, courage, and who actively sought to shape the terms of the debate and policy through the force of their personalities and clarity of vision.
We haven’t seen a more serious threat to democracy and liberal values since WWII. But I also firmly believe that we can beat this threat back, too, just as we did then. We just have to be clear about the nature of the danger and act now to defeat it.
The problem is that the Democrats don’t unmask Trump’s essential cowardice and overmatch his dominance game. Liberals often seem to think that people just need to evolve past their need for dominant leaders and get on with creating a world in which everyone gets along, and nobody seeks to dominate anybody else. But as the eminent psychologist Dan McAdams notes, our desire for commanding leaders is baked into our DNA. It isn’t all we seek in our leaders, but seek it we do, and that isn’t going to change anytime soon. McAdams argues that no American president has tapped into what he calls “the primal psychology of dominance” as effectively as Trump has. In fact, McAdams suggests that Trump has little but dominance going for him.
Of course, many voters are repelled by Trump’s style. But overall he has gained more than he has lost because of his high-dominance strategies.
About the immunity ruling
- The first case the USSC released today, Corner Post, Inc. v. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve just blew another massive hole in the ability of federal agencies to regulate. The USSC is tearing down the entire foundation of executive administrative regulatory power. Judge Jackson wrote a long dissent, which includes these comments:
More than half a century ago, this Court highlighted the long-recognized “hazards inherent in attempting to define for all purposes when a ‘cause of action’ first ‘accrues.’” Crown Coat Front Co. v. United States, 386 U. S. 503, 517 (1967). Today, the majority throws that caution to the wind and engages in the same kind of misguided reasoning about statutory limitations periods that we have previously admonished.The flawed reasoning and far-reaching results of the Court’s ruling in this case are staggering. First, the reasoning. The text and context of the relevant statutory provisions plainly reveal that, for facial challenges to agency regulations, the 6-year limitations period in 28 U. S. C. §2401(a) starts running when the rule is published. The Court says otherwise today, holding that the broad statutory term “accrues” requires us to conclude that the limitations period for Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims runs from the time of a plaintiff ’s injury.
The Court’s baseless conclusion means that there is effectively no longer any limitations period for lawsuits that challenge agency regulations on their face. Allowing every new commercial entity to bring fresh facial challenges to long-existing regulations is profoundly destabilizing for both Government and businesses. It also allows well-heeled litigants to game the system by creating new entities or finding new plaintiffs whenever they blow past the statutory deadline.The majority refuses to accept the straightforward, commonsense, and singularly plausible reading of the limitations statute that Congress wrote. In doing so, the Court wreaks havoc on Government agencies, businesses, and society at large. I respectfully dissent.
At the end of a momentous Term, this much is clear: The tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court’s holdings in this case and Loper Bright (the decision yesterday that blew the Chevron defense and neutered federal agency rule-making power] have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government. Even more to the present point, that result simply cannot be what Congress intended when it enacted legislation that stood up and funded federal agencies and vested them with authority to set the ground rules for the individuals and entities that participate in the our economy and our society. It is utterly inconceivable that §2401(a)’s statute of limitations was meant to permit fresh attacks on settled regulations from all new comers forever. Yet, that is what the majority holds today.
- Comments to be added after the USSC immunity opinion is made public. I am following the flow of commentary at Scotus Blog, about the best USSC blog out there.
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43.
Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.
The majority of my colleagues seems to have put their trust in our Court’s ability to prevent Presidents from becoming Kings through case-by-case application of the indeterminate standards of their new Presidential accountability paradigm. I fear that they are wrong.
But, for all our sakes, I hope that they are right. In the meantime, because the risks (and power) the Court has now assumed are intolerable, unwarranted, and plainly antithetical to bedrock constitutional norms, I dissent.
My second-guessing is showing… again.
Yes, you know I’m a second-guesser. Have been all my life. I suppose you could say I’m “careful” like that, always weighing the options.
Like most of us Dems, I was super freaked out by the debate performance
by Joe Biden last Thursday. I stated
that “even I was warming up” to the idea that he has to drop out and give
someone else a better chance.
Here's the reason that changed my mind. It is well worth the full 17:49 min listen:
I realize now, thanks to Mika’s opinion editorial, that
dropping out is the worst thing that could happen for the Dems. Talk about a then “super fractured”
party. Bad, bad, and I mean bad idea. DJT would benefit from our fracturing and we,
in our haste and panic, would catapult the serial liar to a sure victory.
So, barring unforeseen circumstances, I will be sticking
with Joe until the end.
What about you? Will
you be sticking with Joe until the end?
I firmly believe that if you/we don’t, like our mistake in 2000 with Ralph
Nader, we will be partly responsible for a second+++? Trump term(s).
Make your case.
(by PrimalSoup)