free speech and internet

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

Justin: you wrote>>The S.Ct ran up against this back in 40 when it decided
that a racially
restrictive covenant was unenforceable under the equal protection clause
because if it were to be enforced, that would implicates the courts and so
be
state action. (Shelley v. Kramer) This even though the covenant is a private
contracta mong private parties. Well, you can see where that leads, and the
history of the state action doctrine (requiring action by the state to
implicate constitutional rights) is an incoherent flight from those
implications.
======

How does the court avoid implicability?  Where's the State's [in]action?

*******
Because state regulation of economic and social relations gets "rational
basis" review unless it touches on race, maybe on sex, or implicates a very
short and now fixerd list of fundamental rights.
=====

How and who "fixed" these "fundamental" rights?

**************
Because if you let Shelly v. Kramer run amok, on the left, you get
socialism, and on the right, you get constitutionalization of lots of things
that we none of us want the feds involved in.
=========
Well, how do create a catalog of these cases so we can duke it out with the
right?  "First" in texts, articles, etc. re-exploring past cases and then
thinking of bringing potential new cases back into the circuits to revisit
the questions?

Even though the law is running on [tired and obsolete] experience, there are
only so many
[il]logical moves the right can make since the positivism that informs their
methodology is tapped out.  Aren't the Feds already involved in precisely
the things we don't want them involved in, much to the joy of the right?

Ian