So, I clicked on "See the List" & at that time, it took you here:
Now it takes you here:
And, once I saw what it was, I took all the screen shots, and then I backed up to the original tweet 👇to see who this guy was.
And this is who he is:
And then I searched for "Trump Accountability Project" and similar terms & came up with these:
Which takes you to these two "winners."
Because they are doing this all out in the open, because they are totalitarian thugs.
But after I started tweeting about it, they took off two of the tabs from their list: the "Appointees" tab and the "Donors" tab, which had the list of judges and campaign donors. See 👇
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.