> First, the bar covers actions "under such authority"—meaning actions that exceed the statute's grant fall outside it entirely.
The authority, which is omitted in the article, is likely the subsection entitled "Authority". Who woulda thought. (a) Authority.—…(1) carry out a covered procurement action; and (2) limit, notwithstanding any other provision of law, in whole or in part, the disclosure of information relating to the basis…. There is no mention of "was built to address foreign adversary threats to the IT supply chain" in the aforementioned authority. The rest reminds me of sovereign citizen arguments: good luck lol this is about military procurement.
> "Adversary" is undefined, but
This holds more water. Too bad the court will be prevented from reviewing the underlying record with which to decide, for a coequal branch, who are adversaries. And unlike IEEPA, their declarations are not in the Constitution.
> Pretext
The underlying record, and their decision to "limit" disclosure (not "not to disclose"), is unreviewable.
> the required findings don't hold up
Dang, ignorance of "no action … shall be subject to review" is doing real work. It does not matter if only the record cannot be reviewed. If a court cannot review the information, it cannot make contrary decisions.
HHC, a Democratic Party-controlled state corporation, with the NYC administrator of health services as its chairman, is selling health data. Which is ok as long as it's not Palantir or the elected government, apparently. (The elected governments that run the systems.) Get off your high horses, any faux outrage does not fool many.
HIPAA privacy arose indirectly from its administrative simplification provisions concerning its main goal of standardized electronic health data. Privacy is not "why HIPAA exists".
The Challenger report contains large companies' announced future cuts. Not government, not small and medium business, not actual job losses. So neither, really.
CES establishment payroll survey monthly change averages is quite the choice of stats lol.
JOLTS is where stress shows first. Openings fall,[1] hiring slows,[2] quits drop,[3] and layoffs rise later.[4] Biden in particular shows the weakness of your provided stats.
>CES establishment payroll survey monthly change averages is quite the choice of stats lol.
Can you explain why? Given that it's presumably averaged over the president's entire term, doesn't that provide a good measure of how much jobs were added under a given administration?
It's a lagging indicator meant to credit or discredit administrations for past administrations' actions, handpicked to obfuscate cycle capture. CES is backward-looking by definition, so it is being abused here.
Also think of average populations under constant growth, as under Obama and Trump I pre-COVID: Trump's average would be higher in absolute terms than Obama, despite no fundamental change, and Biden higher still, and Trump II higher yet. Absolute populations and jobs go hand in hand. Averages without normalization are statistical theater.
Us Wikipedians have done a poor job on the federal statistical system (FSS or NSS), and this one of many results, this HN thread. I am working on it with the help of chat bots, but progress is slow given my focus on US healthcare and welfare systems. Fundamental laws have been documented, but the actual systems they enable are poorly documented.
reply