What is misleading is your tweet, @nprpolitics. Differences of opinion, differences in emphasis, & complicating or even competing facts don’t make things “false” or “misleading.” /1
What is misleading is your assertion that Biden has not called to defund the police. Although he has rejected that language subsequently, he gave an interview in which he agreed with “redirecting” police funding, a difference of semantics only. See link in next tweet. /2
At a minimum it’s a fair interpretation that he endorsed some defunding of police in this interview & should have to clarify what he means by his comment in this interview if that’s not what it is. /4
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Now that we all know what DEI is, I want to talk to the Right of Center about reclaiming the correct meaning of “equity.”
Equity is a legal word. It is contrasted with “law” in legal understanding.
The English common law developed the concept of “equity” as a means of avoiding the harsh and unjust outcomes that a strict application of “the law” sometimes produces.
This would be stuff like a lease where a couple made all payments except the last one was one day late because the husband died & the widow could not access to their account for a few days and the landlord would foreclose on the entire property. Technically allowed; still BS.
Ruling impartially on a case is a judge’s official duty. Taking money to rule for one side is not. But notice that the judge doesn’t benefit from the ruling, but from the bribe. Same for public officials.
Similarly, where a public official does benefit directly and personally from their own official act, esp if that is not disclosed, we’ve deemed that a conflict of interest, which is also private conduct that invalidates the public act.
These private acts are entirely different from cases where a govt official receives no personal financial benefit but gets an indirect non-monetary benefit - popularity, future votes, legacy - and (like everyone else) may benefit from the substantive official act (eg tax cuts.)
The test for whether spoken words are free speech or not is called the Brandenburg test from a SCOTUS case in 1969. It is also called the "imminent lawless action" test. ONLY if the speech rises to that level does it fall outside of the protection of the First Amendment.
In essence the speech must be the kind that does or inexorably is known to lead to "imminent disorder." (This standard is from another SCOTUS case in 1973, Hess.)
This is a very high bar & effectively renders almost all speech that doesn't actually result in violence, protected.
The "speech" in Brandenburg took place at a KKK rally, disparaged Blacks & Jews, suggested "revengance" should be had against the Congress for "suppressing" whites, & explained there would be a "march on Congress" on July 4th of 400,000, followed by marches in FL & MS.