 I came to law school in a psychodynamic state of mind. As an undergraduate psychology major and self-identifying Jungian, I wanted to use law school as a training ground for me to improve my confidence, my writing, and my social skills. I figured I could coast along in academia for a while until I figured out what I actually wanted to do with my life, and maybe that ideal career would indeed involve practicing law. After all, my mother is a Trusts and Estates lawyer who started her own boutique law firm in North Jersey, and that turned out pretty well for her and the clients who rely on her. I figured it would be a safe option to follow in her tried and true footsteps to figure out whether law was some sort of generational gift that she had passed down to me, and if not, I could figure out some other path during my time at school.  Right from the start of my 1L year, the confusion of navigating legal quagmires thrusted me into depression. This deep melancholy stemmed from a sudden, jarring sense of incompetence that I now imagine most 1Ls are forced to confront during their transition into the legal world. The skills that got me in the mahogany halls of law school, I realized, were rudimentary for the functions they needed to complete, and only through the trial-by-fire nature of a classroom did those skills (slowly) begin to sharpen. Throughout the challenging experience, I found that periods of concentrated reflection allowed me to come up for air and keep the bigger picture in mind, revealing to me through various mediums how exactly I was feeling, growing, and becoming a professional with distinct values and goals. The insights I gained from reflection helped ground me as I began to grapple with the inherent difficulties of law. I wrote many passages in my journal throughout the first year that will stick with me for a long time, but my favorite first year reflections are the series of paintings I created that note, through expression on canvas, the changes of my cognitive processes over time.  Law school turned out to be the blessing that I did not know that I needed, and one that I was sometimes reluctant to accept. It has been hard, of course, really really hard. The cold calls, the dumbfounding waves of confusion, the countless blunders, they fester and linger as forces that have torn me down time and time again throughout the adventure of my 1L year. Not only do the simulated conditions within the school grounds present immense difficulties, but also the conditions of life outside the wrought iron gates of GW Law’s quad. Life doesn’t wait for lawyers to catch up on their emails, no, life can flare up with issues at the drop of a hat. But life is life, and life is unavoidable, and so lawyers must do their best under the circumstances to put up one hell of a fight for their client. They must use their power for good, and through it all, they must remain humble and hardworking. At least this is what I tell myself when I have trouble remembering what the point of it all is.  The moments that make it all worth it, where components that felt impossible to grasp start to click into place, propel me closer towards a fulfilling professional life. The people that I've met, the realization that I have power to make positive changes, and the resilience that I've begun to build inspire me to keep moving forward, even as I face how much left I have yet to learn. The more I venture deeper into doctrine, the more convinced I become of the necessity to ingrain psychology to my application of the law. Psychology, which underscores much of my process, aids in my ability to persuade and use my voice to impact the world around me. Synthesizing a legal framework with my existing perspective will help me craft ideas that can benefit the greater good. I am excited to continue this pursuit while working towards my Juris Doctor, and far beyond. I leave my first year of law school with loose ends. I’m excited to see how each string ties together, and I imagine the quilt that I will ultimately create to be unexpected, but hopefully beautiful, too.
0 Comments
 George Washington delivered the following remarks in his farewell address, where he communicated to the nation for a last time before retiring from public life and the presidency: “Let me now. . . warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.” [1]. In this sage advice, Washington warns that political parties, and the members who support them, can negatively impact the American government if the parties gain prominent influence. Washington categorizes an intuitive understanding of certain human behaviors as the spirit of the party, and various psychological perspectives can clarify the possible contours of George Washington’s prophetic statement. The spirit of the party, and the dark parts of human nature in which it comes from, can be further understood as a confluence of absolute thinking and group identification, that in the modern age, operates under the catalyst of algorithms and requires temperance through individual and community intervention. People often perceive the world in absolutes. Rather than organizing conflicting information in an understanding that accounts for nuance, people may use rote heuristics available to quickly group objects, people, and experiences into absolute good and absolute bad. [2]. This basic instinct can be overridden, but under stressful conditions, people often resort back to faster mental processes like that of relying on absolutes to perceive reality. [3]. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, the current gold standard psychological intervention, attempts to define and target a series of cognitive distortions, listing “black and white thinking” as a potential malignancy in the psyche to be treated. [4][5]. Absolute thinking, also referred to as “splitting” in the context of treating personality disorders like borderline and narcissistic tendencies, appears in a more rigid form in those who have experienced repeated psychological trauma, especially during childhood. [6]. Observing the world in absolutes that exist as either black or white rather than understanding reality’s shades of grey creates polarity, where the differences rather than the similarities between values, goals, and groups are emphasized.   the yin yang symbol (Taijitu) This splitting tendency occurs in individuals, but perhaps, too, as an archetypal structure of a greater collective consciousness, as exhibited by the rise of identification with one of the two main political parties of America. Over time, the political spectrum has exhibited a literal split, where the Republican and Democratic parties’ main values have separated farther from a common nucleus. [7]. Splits also occur as a byproduct of historical events and as a framework within philosophies. For example, during the Great Schism of 1054, leaders began enforcing two versions of Christianity. [8]. Furthermore, Taoism represents the entirety of reality as two dual forces, Yin and Yang, that oppose each other to create an idealized split of energies. Absolute thinking and a resulting split works in tandem with another aspect of behavior, group identification. Sociological and evolutionary perspectives aid in an understanding of how groups operate as a function of social instinct. Groups exist everywhere, from sports teams to religious congregations, friends to the political parties themselves, and work to bring people together in the name of a common cause. Groups satiate a person’s inherent need to belong, where groups provide affiliation, and at their peak utility, a collective effervescence which greatly benefits a person within a group by protecting a person against the negative consequences of loneliness. [9] [10][11][12]. With all their benefits, groups have some notable downsides that came about from an evolutionary need to identify with a tribe. Groups helped early humans survive in a dangerous world, where anyone and anything outside the group could not be trusted. This group mentality was a survival mechanism, though now often appears as an unfortunate pattern sometimes labeled as an “us versus them” mentality. [13]. At its worst, this tendency can fester into xenophobia, or unwarranted fear of outsiders and foreigners. [14]. Generally, anyone in the in-group is acceptable, and anyone in the out-group is potentially dangerous (or at the very least disfavored). [15]. Group identification may be less needed in today’s world, where many of the dangers of our ancestors have been eradicated by civilization, but as a shortcut in the cognitive processing system, the “us versus them” mentality still holds great influence over how people view others. [16]. Group leaders can furthermore tap into this evolutionary fear to increase affiliation and decrease the willingness of in-group members to associate with out-group members, as George Washington identified in his farewell address.   The overlapping schemas of absolute thinking and group identification provide a base that algorithms act upon to facilitate political divide. Through a positive feedback loop, social media algorithms are widely held responsible for nudging the public towards more radical content within political echo chambers. [17]. This radicalization occurs because algorithms have the sole goal of increasing engagement on platforms, and content that taps into the evolutionary schemas of absolute thinking and group identification are more inflammatory, and thus addicting, to the human brain. [18]. The term doomscrolling encapsulates the public’s intuitive understanding of this phenomenon, where scrolling for more content becomes a conditioned response to a feeling of existential dread that is exacerbated by engagement with the social media platform in the first place. The initial dread occurs because algorithms supply information that activates the limbic system, an ancient emotional regulation system in the brain responsible for fear and anger. The limbic system evolved before the prefrontal cortex in the brain. Rather than creating a survival response to fear, the prefrontal cortex engages in harder executive functioning tasks like planning, abstraction, and self-awareness. Using the limbic system requires less effort, and so information that appeals to this part of our regulatory system is easier to digest, and consciously or not, people may accept the information supplied by the algorithms that inflame the limbic system as correct more readily [19]. After all, the limbic system has the longest track record of helping humans quickly evaluate threats and survive danger. Social media platforms are engineered to exploit this evolutionary pathway, inflaming the system before supplying a barrage of information that coaxes the unsuspecting scroller deeper down the rabbit hole of radicalization, thus polarizing the political climate for the overall population. This polarization, which vests great political power to the Democratic and Republican parties as influential entities, should be further studied so that stakeholders understand the consequences of polarization on governmental functions. Furthermore, strategic interventions can be developed to mitigate the effects of polarization to better allow for bipartisan overlap in policymaking and administration. Intervention would likely require a multi-pronged, preventative approach, where change on an individual and local level could ripple outwards to enact widescale shifts that reach the marble steps of Capitol Hill. Additionally, policies that better regulate social media platforms may be essential to address widespread political polarization, among other psychological drawbacks that have been causally linked to social media use. [20].  Parents of children who have died due to alleged social media-related harms stood outside the Los Angeles Superior Courthouse on Feb 5th ahead of a social media addiction trial. (Photo courtesy of Jordan Strauss/AP Content Services for ParentsTogether Action) At the front lines of neuroses, psychologists need to supply tools to overcome the mental inertia that lends itself to splitting when this cognitive distortion presents itself as a roadblock to individuals seeking help. Education, too, must help young people develop a bedrock of critical thinking skills and mindfulness so that they can build an internal awareness. From kindergarten to the ivory towers of higher education, a pedagogical throughline that helps teach young people to understand and act in concert with their values can help strengthen cognitive processes and make individuals less susceptible to prescribed values of groups. [21]. The need to belong, too, should be satisfied by communities where people can converse face-to-face about shared interests outside the political sphere. Political polarization, reflecting a perhaps unfortunate truth about human nature, can be addressed on a local and even individual level. In turn, the representative government of the legislative branch, which mirrors the psychological health of the people that it aims to serve, will be less susceptible to rigid partisanship.  Love them or hate them, Trump’s tariffs are in jeopardy following the February 20 Supreme Court decision. Trump had relied on a federal statute called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify his tariffs. The Act states that in the event of a national emergency, the president has the power to “regulate…importation.” 50 U.S.C. §1702(a)(1)(B). Trump declared a national emergency to address public health concerns regarding an influx of drugs coming into the United States from Canada, Mexico, and China, then began implementing his tariffs through a series of Executive Orders. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, No. 24–1287, slip op. at 2 (U.S. Feb, 20, 2025). The Supreme Court disagreed that the IEEPA, and specifically the statute’s wording giving the president the power to regulate importation, meant to delegate the authority of implementing tariffs to the executive branch in the case of a national emergency. Learning Resources, slip op. at 14. The Court alludes to three main touchstones, historical precedent, the major questions doctrine, and statutory interpretation, to support the majority opinion that Trump overextends the language of the IEEPA to illegally enact tariffs. Id. at 5-15. First, the Court explains that no past president has ever attempted to use the IEEPA to enact tariffs before Trump. Tariffs implemented by Trump (at one point as high as 145% on Chinese goods) have “great economic and political significance.” Id. at 11. To understand whether a president is allowed to engage in this novel application of the IEEPA, the Court must consider whether the president acted within constitutional bounds, and whether Congress intended to authorize the president to impose the great power of tariffs through the IEEPA. The power of taxation is expressly reserved for Congress, which acts as the Purse of the United States. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1. Taxation is perhaps the most important role of the federal government, beginning from the American Revolution that came about through the angst of taxation without representation. Representation occurs most directly through the legislative branch, where a bicameral approach accounts for proportionate population and state interests. U.S. Const. art. I, § 2-3. In the Framers' view, as alluded to by the majority opinion, Congress has the power to tax because it best represents the diverse factions that make up the American people. Federalist No. 10. Since the Court classifies tariffs as a tax, with the same purpose of raising revenue for the government, tariffs are a reserved power of the legislative branch unless delegated through express authority to the president. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). Because the Trump administration does not have the power to impose tariffs on its own, the administration had to manufacture permission from Congress, settling on the vague language in the IEEPA to grant a green light forward. The enumerated powers of the federal government’s three branches can have blurry edges, where in some cases, the branches can pawn off their authorities to each other through consent. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). However, according to the major questions doctrine, ambiguous statutory language is not enough to grant authority from Congress to the president. West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 721–23 (2022). In the case at hand, the term “regulate” is not explicit enough to allow a president to impose tariffs, so Trump has no clear Congressional permission to enact tariffs, even under the circumstance of a declared national emergency. Learning Resources, slip op. at 14. Statutory interpretation furthermore aids the Court in understanding the true meaning of the IEEPA. On this point, the concurring Justices diverge to express perspectives on how to best interpret statutes. Learning Resources, slip op. at 14-88. Textualism is one approach, where dictionary definitions of “regulate” are explained to exclude enacting tariffs. Legislative history, of which little to no evidence exists to support Trump’s interpretation of the law, is also examined. The court additionally turns to canons of construction, which guide an examination of how Congress could have specified if meaning to allow executive enactment of tariffs in a national emergency. All roads of the statutory interpretation lead to the same destination, that the IEEPA cannot be read to allow Trump to impose tariffs. Id. at 14-88. So, what happens now? In my view, Trump will likely not accept defeat, and he has already vowed to continue his tariff regime. Trump may attempt to find a clearer (or even just different) congressional statute that could be interpreted to give him the ability to impose tariffs. The battle between Trump and the Supreme Court will in this instance continue, where the Justices would be forced to either reexamine the issue or throw up their hands. If Congress takes the temperature of the public (and, too, the perhaps more persuasive reaction of lobbyists) to find that the country generally supports Trump’s tariffs, Congress can more clearly delegate its authority to Trump as allowed by the major questions doctrine, thus clarifying the “zone of twilight” in which the distribution of power between Congress and the president was before uncertain. See Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring). No matter the path forward, the Constitution limits Trump’s authority to the extent that it underscores the laws written by Congress and guides the decisions of the Supreme Court, and he must act within the bounds of the law.  The emotions begin as survival mechanisms that get organized into more complex arrays called archetypes. Archetypes are idealized advisors of the ego studied best through external expressions, like human art [1]. Take, for example, the image of a king seated at a table with his trusted court, each member of which has distinct but perhaps overlapping motivations and desires. The king has the ultimate say, but often, he relies on the courtiers around him to finalize his courses of actions. Some courtiers are closely related to him, and some he learns to lean on through shared experience and a history that has solidified a sense of trust [2].  the small council in Game of Thrones mirrors the processes within the court of the ego In the mind, the ego has two extensions, the id, representing primal urges, and the superego, representing morality. The rest of the courtiers are a synthesis of behavioral patterns, learned and relied upon, that gain strength depending on how the ego develops in childhood [3]. In the early developmental stages, the influence of a family system has the greatest bargaining power with the ego, which is why family and childhood become main touchstones in psychological healing. Generally, each time an ego's ultimate decision yields a desired outcome, the courtiers responsible gain prominence and power, while the other forces shrink away. The longer an ego rules, the less flexible to take in the varying perspectives of the less-trustworthy advisors [4]. When a person presents in crisis, a psychologist must determine whether the ego will be receptive to change [5]. A psychologist, by engaging in a dialogue with a person, attempts to insert a new advisor at the court of the ego with a perspective that is inadequately represented by the existing courtiers. This new advisor must learn a delicate dance to charm over the advisors, and hopefully the ego, by uniting forces in a new compromise. Therapy thus becomes a bargaining process between a competent psychologist and the rational actors seated at the court of the ego.  The Court of the Ego (2025) Acrylic on Canvas, 12 x 16 in [1] Jung, Carl. The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, translated by R. F. C. Hull, 2nd ed., Princeton UP, 1981. Carl Jung wrote extensively on his theory of archetypes and how they reappear across human history, religions, and art forms. He believed that archetypes were idealized forms within the collective unconsciousness and had an instinctual place, too, in the psyche of each individual. [2] Greene, R. (1998). The 48 laws of power (pp. 179–190). Viking Press. A chapter detailing courtiers in history that emphasizes the power and influence that advisors hold as a potential pattern across human behavior. [3] Freud, S. (1923). The Ego and the Id. Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing. https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Freud_SE_Ego_Id_complete.pdf Freud first identified and defined the elements of the ego, superego, and the id, which have been incorporated into this proposed approach to psychological intervention. [4] Operant conditioning teaches the ego to trust some advisors more than others. When listening to advice leads to a positive outcome (a reward), the advisor is conditioned to continue to listen. When listening to advice leads to a negative outcome (a punishment), the advisor is conditioned to avoid the advice of that person. See Rholetter, W. (2022). Operant Conditioning. EBSCO. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/operant-conditioning202 [5] I refer to the idea of motivational interviewing, a technique used by psychologists to evaluate whether a person is ready to change. Often, when people seek the help of a therapist, they may know they want to stop repeating a certain pattern, but at the same time feel a sense of identification with the very behavior causing them problems in their lives. For example, a person who drinks and wants to stop may be ambivalent about actually becoming sober even if they feel it is necessary for their health. For more information on motivational interviewing (MI), see this comprehensive review: Britt, E., Blampied, N. M., & Hudson, S. M. (2003). Motivational interviewing: A Review. Australian Psychologist, 38(3), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050060310001707207  I'm struggling with writer's block because I've been reading opinions, case after case of some of the most remarkable writing available in America. The form is different, more clinical, more classic, but rooted in the art of the persuasive essay. Organization brings rationale to life, where a judge must reach a delicate balance between an explanation of facts and why a proposed holding should come forth from them. I'm far from understanding the full breadth of knowledge needed to write with force, clarity, and stature like the authors I interact with in law school. To say something worthy of an audience is difficult, and this goal is something I strive towards in all of my pursuits, academic and otherwise. When I bring pen to paper, I hope that my thoughts yield insight, but I often fall short of achieving anything more than self reflection. I want to make people think, I want to inspire, but I need to continue clarifying my ideas and my public persona. The overlap between inspiration and entertainment in delivery and content is important, and in these areas I'm on the right track, but I need another piece to the puzzle, a more developed logos, that threads through every pore of my work, not just the general picture. A theme of the law school curriculum is learning to distill the important details from a sea of information, a skill often labeled as synthesis. Legal writing is a feat I have yet to master, and it is perhaps the most difficult task I've encountered so far as a student. However, painting helps me practice synthesis in a more relaxed environment. In painting, I've used a rudimentary synthesis to narrow down elements of cartoon faces that most often repeat in my work into four distinct characters. Like trial lawyers who must decide how much of the facts to tell a jury, an artist often aims to express succinct, impactful ideas without overwhelming her audience. She can begin by fleshing out many avenues of relevance, then through careful review and refinement, assess which elements express the emotions or ideas she attempts to convey. Writers, too, engage in a sort of synthesis process when practicing storytelling. When synthesis guides the creation of content, a receiver (judge, jury, or general audience alike) fills in the gaps with common sense, experience, and projections. Content in this way mirrors the expectations of its audience, bringing forth a reaction from a state of existing dormancy. Artists entertain, and the interpretive exchange between creator and audience is one of fruitful enjoyment. What, then, occurs when a legislator writes a law that governs the nation's activities? The interpretation of law has economic, spiritual, and even discriminatory consequences on those who live under the law's regime. If lawyers are the foot soldiers who advance a view of law through adversarial exchange, judges declare the prevailing understanding of a statute, drawing on case law, theory, canons of construction, and hard-earned experience to come to a conclusion.
Now that I've survived my first semester of law school and have surpassed a fight-or-flight approach to reading cases, I see the moments of genius enshrined in the endless words with more appreciation. I hope to harness the craftmanship so essential to legal opinions, the words from which we follow the golden thread of law to better navigate the labyrinth of human experience. |
