I’ll wager whatever you like that USSC does not reverse- as it won’t get that far.
Come on people, do some reading!
As posted in another thread:
The data on the website(s) is public data subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, a Federal Law.
That data, once public, can’t be removed without adhering the Administrative Procedures Act - another Federal Law.
The Executive Branch just can’t remove the data is what the Plaintiffs allege - I believe they have the stronger case at present.
Here’s the case - read!
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69608613/doctors-for-america-v-office-of-personnel-management/
“The data on the website(s) is public data subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, a Federal Law.”
“That data, once public, can’t be removed without adhering the Administrative Procedures Act - another Federal Law.”
In February 2020 I read that masks were worthless.
A few months later I read that they needed to be used.
The information I posted in 19 is accurate.
If Dr. Quack wants to testify under oath in a federal court otherwise, I’m sure Pam Bondi would be delighted.
The National Weather Service updates webpages rapidly.
The NOAA updates webpages rapidly.
“The removal of the webpages and datasets
creates a dangerous gap in the scientific data available to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks,
deprives physicians of resources that guide clinical practice, and takes away key resources for communicating and engaging with patients.”
Websites dealing with health issues normally state that the information is no substitute for a professional education.
“Defendants failed to provide required notice of their action to remove these vitally important webpages and datasets, and their actions are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.
See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).”
We had a federal election. The voters said to “cut the ****”.
“Plaintiff Doctors for America (DFA) is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) organization of over 27,000 physicians and medical trainees including medical residents and students in all 50 states, representing all medical specialties.”
How many of these would say under oath and penalty of perjury that it is a good idea to cut off my naughty bits if I was deluded?
“To accomplish those goals, the PRA mandates that every agency must “ensure that the public has timely and equitable access to the agency’s public information” and must “regularly solicit and consider public input on the agency’s information dissemination activities.” 44 U.S.C. §§ 3506(d)(1), (2).”
I suspect someone got paid well to do that.
“The PRA further mandates that agencies must “provide adequate notice when initiating, substantially modifying, or terminating significant information dissemination products.” Id. § 3506(d)(3).”
A rather extensive lawsuit is exactly opposite to the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
“significant information dissemination products”
How many boobs and bits were cut off as a result of the federal webpages?
”5 The Order directed agencies to combat what the President described as “gender ideology,” including by requiring agencies to “use the term ‘sex’ and not ‘gender’ in all applicable Federal policies and documents.”
Gender is a linguistic term.