You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
1–10 of 190 posts
Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
#2I'm not sure what a right to water really means.
A lot of rural cities don't even provide water. People have wells and you pay for them yourself.
Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
#3I think this is a ruling that's hard to justify. There are many frameworks under which the judge could have chosen to rule, it could be treated as assault, or some type of aggravated assault/battery, if the lead can be measured in the people who consumed it, it could be treated as fraud, since the water is presumably sold, etc. and reasoning about that it would ordinarily be a punishable tort would make it clear that the government can't impose that sort of thing either, just as it can't send anyone out to punch people.
Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
#4I'm not sure what a right to water really means. A lot of rural cities don't even provide water. People have wells and you pay for them yourself.
[dead]
Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
#5Misleadingly provocative headline, right? The actual ruling from the article is that the US Constitution does not by itself grant US citizens that right. As the article itself points out, there’s nothing stopping other agreements from granting the right, and indeed several states do so explicitly.
Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
#6Guess what folks, you now have anti rights.Sometimes I hate America and some americans for the bad things they do, but not like that. A good deal of what america is doing to itself these days looks just as insane as what they are doing to other countrys, or at least other countrys that are not doing it to themselves.
There used to be metaphors about poison, and wells, but no one imagined that is could or would leap past that, and become ledgislated policy.
Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
#7I'm not sure what a right to water really means. A lot of rural cities don't even provide water. People have wells and you pay for them yourself.
I suppose it means that has to be available to you somehow, the easiest example perhaps being that if you're renting in such a place, the landlord is obligated to ensure access.
Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
#8This headline is not correct. The ruling was that a constitutional lawsuit was not successful, not that the the US government has carte blanche to poison its citizens drinking water…
So, the correct headline would be “safe drinking water ruled not to be covered by the US constitution”. There are other binding agreements and regulations than the constitution in the US.
Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
#9Misleadingly provocative headline, right? The actual ruling from the article is that the US Constitution does not by itself grant US citizens that right. As the article itself points out, there’s nothing stopping other agreements from granting the right, and indeed several states do so explicitly.
On the other hand it means that states can just not do that and leave their citizens without clean drinking water.
Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
#10[deleted]