MaxedOutMama
Friday, July 06, 2007
Various
I looked at the employment release, and I'll post some comments on it tomorrow. I have a hunch that the employment report is now understating manufacturing employment even while it's overstating construction employment. The B/D model distortions could easily be working in opposite directions. Until then, Calculated Risk has a post up with excellent comments debating the situation.
Consumer credit G.19 might be out later today (at three). Alfred (Archival Federal Reserve Data) is really good, if you are developing an interest in such things.
The 6th Circuit knocked down the somewhat hysterical decision about wiretap surveillance by The Most Honorable Defender of the Innocent, Upholder of the Righteous, Supreme Recognizer of the Essence of the Law, The Most Supremely Just Anna Diggs Taylor by ruling that the suing parties lacked standing due to the minor technical difficulty that not one of them actually had any evidence of having been monitored. It was 2-1, and everyone thinks it's going back for another round. Volokh. I am hoping Carl will post on this one later. Ann Althouse did post, and has links to her earlier comments. The Circuit's opinion is here (pdf, 65 pgs). No word on what Taylor is thinking now, but here is her original opinion.
I wonder if the usual sides are going to adjust their positions on this one? After all, the doctor's plot makes it clear why monitoring internet and other communications networks is effective and necessary. Right now the program is being run under the auspices of the special FISA court. I do not think they will be turning down many requests.
Consumer credit G.19 might be out later today (at three). Alfred (Archival Federal Reserve Data) is really good, if you are developing an interest in such things.
The 6th Circuit knocked down the somewhat hysterical decision about wiretap surveillance by The Most Honorable Defender of the Innocent, Upholder of the Righteous, Supreme Recognizer of the Essence of the Law, The Most Supremely Just Anna Diggs Taylor by ruling that the suing parties lacked standing due to the minor technical difficulty that not one of them actually had any evidence of having been monitored. It was 2-1, and everyone thinks it's going back for another round. Volokh. I am hoping Carl will post on this one later. Ann Althouse did post, and has links to her earlier comments. The Circuit's opinion is here (pdf, 65 pgs). No word on what Taylor is thinking now, but here is her original opinion.
I wonder if the usual sides are going to adjust their positions on this one? After all, the doctor's plot makes it clear why monitoring internet and other communications networks is effective and necessary. Right now the program is being run under the auspices of the special FISA court. I do not think they will be turning down many requests.
