ANS -- Playing chess instead of checkers

This is another incident of people in our government playing chess instead of checkers.  

--Kim

Marlene McCall

rodestponS1769ul0:t90e6b0cm 2o1v22 gcctm9Ml5a291Nr0P6e18 ih l ·

This is a good explanation of why Justice Katanji Brown Jackson's decision issued the administrative stay.

Jay Kuo 

toSsndopre1 2087 o9r0a8 8cNit2l :9gg5gtvAma231afegM1eciu19bc ·

I see from the comments to my post of Prof. Steve Vladeck's explainer that folks are still confused. How it is that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson did the right thing in issuing an administrative stay in the SNAP funding cases?

I'm going to try to break this down again so that people have a clearer sense of what is going on. But I want to start from a basic premise: Justice Jackson is trying to HELP not HURT here. People who leapt to the conclusion that she is part of some evil SCOTUS plot to deny food to starving children need to take a breath. (This is what the media click bait everywhere sought to drive.)

It's always helpful to assume goodwill from the three liberal judges and work backward from there. Let's not attack the good team players!

With that out of the way, let's walk through some things.

Here's the background to this.

A federal judge ordered the government to fully fund SNAP benefits for November. The government appealed that order. That was the really evil thing that started this off. Why appeal a judge's order that is asking you to feed hungry people like you should do under the law?

Meanwhile, the White House asked for an "administrative stay" — meaning a temporary pause of the judge's order so that the appeals court can consider the appeal. 

The appeals court said no to the administrative stay late Friday afternoon. Justice Jackson handles emergency matters from that circuit, so she stepped in and issued the administrative stay herself, late Friday. 

But, but, but…why?!

Fair question. Her order said in effect: "We're pausing the judge's order while the First Circuit considers the stay-motion, and this pause will end 48 hours after the First Circuit decides." 

This was the RIGHT move to make. Justice Jackson used the tools she had to force a *faster* process rather than let things drag indefinitely.

If the judge's order were allowed to go into effect immediately, it might be legally messy. If the case got delayed, millions might go without benefits. Why? Because if Justice Jackson *didn't* grant the administrative stay, there was a strong possibility that five justices on SCOTUS would step in and grant one. And here's the thing: They could do it potentially with **no deadline.**



So she took control of the case the only way she could. If this were a Hearts game, she "took the trick" and some points, but also assumed control of play. Now the pause is temporary, it ends 48 hours after the appeals court acts, and she has signaled the appeals court must act quickly.

Her other option was to deny the administrative stay, but then the full Court could weigh in to overrule her. If the **full** Court granted the stay, it might have stretched out for weeks (or more) before a decision was made — while still blocking the judge's order. She reduced the chance of that by acting.

Justice Jackson's stay has an automatic time-limit, so the appeals court is under pressure. In that sense, she chose "the least-bad option" given the messy facts and timing.

Note that Justice Jackson's stay wasn't a final ruling on whether the government is right or wrong. The stay simply pauses the lower court's order while the appeals process catches up. It's like a day or two more.

She definitely wasn't endorsing the lower court's order nor giving the government a permanent win. The stay is temporary, and she's hoping the First Circuit issues a full opinion soon.

Hope this helps…

ANS -- Another Perspective on Dems "Caving"

Here is an analysis of what the Dems who voted to end the government shutdown might be thinking.  I am sending it because it might be a perspective you haven't heard.  

--Kim

Meg Rodham Wolfers writes:

"It looks like a key group of Senate Democrats are closing a deal to end the shutdown in return for an agreement from Majority Leader Thune to hold a vote on extending the ACA expanded subsidies in December.

At first glance, this may provoke a "Hunh? What are they thinking?"

But whenever the House or Senate Democrats do anything that doesn't look quite right to me, I dig deeper to figure out the reason for it. Because I don't automatically assume that the Dems are weak or complicit or stupid. I figure there's something deeper at play - and more often than not, I'm right.

And it looks like they could be the case here

Some folks are already melting down and accusing the Dems of caving because they say they get nothing out of a deal that includes

"Everyone knows the vote will fail, so they get nothing!!! Dems caved again!"

But wait - let's do a deeper dive. You will see that that getting that agreement is a brilliant strategic move, even if the vote fails.

Consider:

1. The ACA enhanced subsidies are set to automatically sunset in December if no Congressional action is taken to extend them. If there is no deal before then, they just go away on their own.

2. There was no way in hell the Republicans were going to agree to extend the subsidies, no matter how firmly the Democrats held their ground.

3. If the Democrats insisted on keeping the government closed in order to protect the subsidies, at the end of December, the subsidies would have gone away, the Dems would have gotten nothing, and people would have suffered an extended shutdown without getting anything in return.

And this would have happened without the Republicans having to do anything and bearing no responsibility for the subdidies' disappearance.

4. When the subsidies disappeared in December, people who are affected would have blamed the Democrats, not the Republicans.

5. By exacting an agreement from Thune for a vote to extend the subsidies, the Democrats are now forcing the Republicans to AFFIRMATIVELY end the subsidies rather than just letting them die a natural death. Every Republican will have to go on record, while every Democrat can be on record voting "YES."

6. While it is possible that every Republican will vote no, it is possible that the Dems could peel off enough Republicans to vote to extend the subsidies. It would only take a couple and if they put the pressure on over the next few weeks, that could actually happen.

7. If the Democrats can get enough Republicans votes to save the subsidies, that will be a huge win.

8. If the Republicans stand firm and vote no, THEY will own the expiration of the subsidies, not the Democrats.

The bottom line is that the subsidies were going to end in December, no matter what the Dems did. But now, if this deal goes through, if they do end, it will be because the Republicans voted not to extend them, not because they quietly went away. And if they can get enough Republicans on board - which is more possible than it was even just a week ago - they will save the subsidies

The vote will ensure that either the subsidies are extended or the Republicans' fingerprints are all over the expiration - neither of which could happen without holding a vote.

So, I think we need to back off of the condemnation and attacks and shift our focus toward what we can do to help the Democrats get the Republican votes they need to extend the ACA enhanced subsidies.

Of course, I could be completely wrong in my analysis. I don't yet know what the underlying reasons are or the ramifications will be.

But drawing the conclusion that the Democrats are operating with a smart strategy is far more logical than assuming they are clueless traitors.

I have more than enough reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I think we all should."

Before going ballistic about the reopening you may want to consider this.

ANS -- The two Systems in our brains

This article is about how we think.  The two systems in our brains.  

--Kim

Rachel Hurley 

etopSrdsno64g4ca8f0m4151f9066728ttl8fig09hifhg23mh0tu5fi7l51 ·

TL;DR if you don't care about critical thinking skills then this post is not for you.

I know I often write about critical thinking on the profile - but I rarely explain what I mean. Well, I guess I should start doing that if I'm gonna complain about it.

Luckily, I have a whole stack of books on it that I probably need to review for my own benefit, so…

Welcome to my new series where I use my personal library to explain how we can all become better critical thinkers.

Because frankly, we need it.

The political divide in this country isn't just about disagreeing on policy. It's about people on both sides operating without basic reasoning skills. Today, let's talk about Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow, a book that won him a Nobel Prize and explains why your brain is constantly sabotaging you.

I keep watching people on both sides of the political aisle absolutely lose their minds over things that make zero sense.

People sharing obviously fake news, falling for transparent grifts, and believing things that five minutes of actual thinking would debunk.

You probably think you're not one of these people. You're smart. You're informed. You fact-check things.

Here's what you might not realize: your brain is sabotaging you right now, and mine is too.

Kahneman discovered something deeply uncomfortable about human thinking. We don't actually have one unified mind making rational decisions. We have two completely different systems running simultaneously, and the one in charge most of the time is absolutely terrible at its job.

He calls them System 1 and System 2.

Think of System 1 as your autopilot. It's fast, automatic, always running. When you read a headline and instantly know how you feel about it, that's System 1.

When you see a politician's face and immediately trust or distrust them, that's System 1. It handles the overwhelming majority of your mental life effortlessly.

System 2 is different. It's slow, deliberate, and exhausting. This is what's working when you're calculating a tip or following a complex argument. System 2 can actually think logically, weigh evidence, and change its mind based on new information.

Here's the problem: System 2 is lazy as hell.

System 2 requires real mental effort. It burns glucose. It makes you tired. So your brain uses it as little as possible. System 2 mostly just monitors what System 1 is doing and occasionally steps in when something seems obviously wrong. The rest of the time, it goes along with whatever System 1 suggests.

And System 1 is wrong constantly. Not randomly wrong. Systematically, predictably wrong in ways that follow clear patterns.

System 1 works by association and pattern-matching. This is great for recognizing your friend's voice or knowing that touching a hot stove is bad. But it means System 1 can't handle logic. It can't evaluate evidence. It just matches patterns based on what feels familiar or sounds right.

The whole architecture of your thinking is designed for speed and efficiency, not accuracy. This made sense when humans were evolving. Quick decisions mattered more than perfect ones. Better to mistake a shadow for a threat than to carefully analyze whether that's actually a predator while it's eating you.

But we're not running from predators anymore. We're trying to evaluate complex policy proposals, distinguish real news from propaganda, and figure out who's telling the truth in a media environment specifically designed to hijack System 1's weaknesses.

System 1 jumps to conclusions based on limited information. It can't be turned off. It's biased to believe rather than doubt. It accepts information that fits your existing worldview and fights against information that doesn't. Most critically, System 1 often answers an easier question than the one you're actually asking. You wonder if a policy is effective, but System 1 tells you whether you like the politician proposing it.

And here's where this gets relevant to why American politics is such a mess: System 2 thinks it's in charge, but it's usually not.

When you're scrolling through social media and instantly sharing something that confirms your beliefs, that's System 1. When you dismiss a good argument because it comes from someone on the other team, that's System 1. When you accept a terrible argument because it comes from someone on your team, that's System 1.

System 2 could step in. It could actually evaluate the evidence, check the sources, think through the logic. But System 2 is tired, and checking your own thinking is hard work, and frankly it's easier to just trust that your instant reaction is correct.

This is happening on the left and the right. Progressives falling for obvious rage bait about conservatives. Conservatives sharing transparently fake stories about progressives. Everyone trusting their gut, which is just System 1 making snap judgments based on whatever feels right.

The strength of your conviction means nothing. System 1 is equally confident when it's right and when it's wrong. That feeling of being absolutely certain? That's just cognitive ease. It means the information fit your existing patterns, not that it's actually true.

Intelligence doesn't save you. Education doesn't save you. Knowing about these biases doesn't save you. Smart people just get better at rationalizing their System 1 reactions after the fact.

The only thing that helps is deliberate effort. You have to actively engage System 2. You have to slow down and think when everything in your brain is telling you that you already know the answer. You have to doubt your own certainty and check your own reasoning.

This is exhausting. There's no way around it. Good thinking requires actual work, which is precisely why most people avoid it most of the time.

But here's what I keep coming back to: we're making decisions about the future of the country, about policies that affect millions of people, about who gets power and how they use it. And most of us are doing it on autopilot, trusting a system that's designed to be efficient rather than accurate, confident rather than correct.

If you actually care about truth, if you actually want to understand what's happening instead of just confirming what you already believe, you have to start treating your own brain as an unreliable narrator. Because it is one. System 1 is lying to you constantly, and System 2 is asleep at the wheel.

The uncomfortable reality is this: you are not naturally built for rational thought.

You're built for quick, confident, wrong-most-of-the-time thinking. And until you accept that, until you understand how your own mind actually works, you're just another person in the crowd believing whatever feels right and wondering why everyone else is so damn stupid.

They're not more stupid than you. They're just running on the same broken system.

If you want me to dig into more of my old books lemme know. My brain is lazy too and I don't want to do all of this work if nobody cares.

Okay - good talk.