274 F.3d at 7-8, 10; Román Meléndez, 826 F.2d at 134-35. In contrast, none of those prerogatives or powers are present here. Most importantly, unlike the employees in Dwriex-Gauthier and Román Meléndez, López-Quiñones was not involved in making or recommending any agency policy. There is nothing in the record to support a finding that López-Quiñones was a policymaker. The majority opinion describes him as having only “modest, if any, involvement in policymaking,” Op. at 26, and even the appellants “failed to identify policy decisions in which López[-Quiñones] was directly involved or over which he had influence.” Id. at 27. Policymaking is the key function in requiring that the employee be required to belong to the political party in power. See Elrod, 427 U.S. at 367, 96 S.Ct. 2673 (<HOLDING>). As stated by the majority at the outset of
holding that where the first amendment does not protect a certain activity there can be no first amendment right of association to engage in that activity holding that under the first amendment patronage dismissals must be restricted to policymaking positions recognizing first amendment and fourteenth amendment interests in inmate correspondence recognizing first amendment retaliation right holding that a claim under the first amendment overbreadth doctrine will not succeed unless  the challenged statute itself will significantly compromise recognized first amendment protections of parties not before the court