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.
Or a person with a clearly meritorious claim would lose because their lawyer would file it under the wrong kind of technical form, or no available form (which were very strictly construed) would apply.
So the courts said that the law itself should not be an impediment to justice basically & they developed the concept of equity to deal with cases that rational & reasonable people could see were unjust because of overly formal legalisms.
Equity didn’t necessarily mean the other party would win though either. Sometimes it just gave the judge power to use a remedy that was less harsh than a strict application of law. Like the landlord can foreclose on the widow, but does get interest for the late last payment.
To “get equity” though, you also had “to do equity.” For example, you couldn’t hold someone to a strict deadline on a contract & then ask the court to overlook your own tardiness in filing suit.
You couldn’t be a big asshole about something & then expect a judge to apply the more merciful principles to you. You had ti have “clean hands.”
You also couldn’t demand strict application of the law from the judge if you persuaded or coerced someone into delaying taking action against you or deceived them in some way.
The concept of equity saved the law from being so draconian and rigid, and a tool for the assholes in the world to use against their neighbors, friends, & family. This was necessary because a system of justice that produces too many, in fact, unjust results will be overthrown.
So, properly understood and used, “equity” is not a dirty word, is not communism, & indeed is a necessary tool of just governance that all should approve.
We must, therefore, reclaim it from the Leftists who have distorted its meaning.
*can NOT foreclose on the widow*
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
The US govt needs to & is going to spy on foreigners overseas & also here, in our security defense.
FISA or no FISA, that will happen.
The only questions are who “gate keeps” it & how & what the standards are & whether the standards differ inside the US.
There is no question in my mind, at all, that the federal govt has unlimited power to spy on foreigners overseas for our national security intelligence purposes.
None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Domestic spying- of foreigners here & of US persons here & abroad- present different issues.
And there is an age old problem of whether/if/when/how information obtained from intelligence can be used in the criminal process.
These issues must be debated vigorously & our rights as US persons jealousy guarded.
In my view the case before the SCOTUS this morning on free speech at base is not that complicated:
The govt, just like any other actor in our society, can speak.
But unlike some other actors, in speaking, the govt cannot tell others what to say or not say.
The govt can add its voice to the free exchange of ideas in the open marketplace of discussion . And it can say that its information or viewpoint is the “official” govt version.
It CANNOT, however, insist that alternative info or views be suppressed, directly or indirectly.
It has to compete openly for respect and primacy and supremacy for its views in the marketplace of ideas, just like every other speaker.
Anything else is a violation of the citizens’ First Amendment rights.