Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

I gather there was an important 2005 decision of the US Supreme Court regarding the internet. With my usual promptness I'm kind of catching up with it 14 years later/ Yes, the tech has changed a lot in 14 years, but the changes have made the decision more important, not less. They have raised issues such as how the decision applies to new unexpected variants of internet use. The gist of it is that the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Thomas, upheld a decision by the FCC that cable companies that sell broadband internet services do NOT provide a telecommunications service as defined by the Communications Act of 1934. [Mark THAT date.] I'm just laying down a marker. I'll have to come back to the subject. https://casetext.com/case/national-cable-telecommunications-assn-v-brand-x-internet-services-4

The Supreme Court, earlier this term extended the time that would normally have been slated for arguments on the immigration case this term, US v. Texas. This Monday, it heard those arguments. Some background: the Obama administration has sought to implement a program it calls Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), effectively allowing people in the US illegally to remain here, work lawfully, and receive other benefits that would otherwise be withheld from them by law. One of the arguments against DAPA is that it violates APA. Also, that's the only argument that employs rhyming acronyms, so it is presumably the important one. APA is the Administrative Procedure Act, and it created notice and comment procedures for new administrative rules. Opponents of the Obama policy contend that DAPA is a new rule within the scope of APA, yet it was initiated without the proper notice-and-comment period, thus it is invalid. Apparently it is the Secretary of Homeland Securi...