Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

motherjones.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 190 posts

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#31

Post by jvdvegt »

lukan wrote: post #18

"Engelhardt stated there is no “constitutional right to truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.” " " “Defendants’ actions allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of clean water and guileless information. These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.”" He basically says, the constitution does not care, whether the government lies to citizens, so they…

So from now on you can safely assume your government is lying (especially the current administration). Worrisome...

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#32

Post by gavinsyancey »

Smaug123 wrote: post #16
IsTom wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand it means that states can just not do that and leave their citizens without clean drinking water.

Does it? I think that conclusion requires observing additionally that all federal law also fails to grant a right to safe drinking water, doesn’t it?

Many municipal water systems are wholely in one state. Does the Constitution grant Congress the right to control municipal water quality?

Also it's kind of a moot point if federal law has not granted that right and does not seem likely to.

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#33

Post by ButlerianJihad »

https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/docu...

Laudato Si' by Pope Francis: On Care for Our Common Home

  30. Even as the quality of available water is constantly diminishing, in some places there is a growing tendency, despite its scarcity, to privatize this resource, turning it into a commodity subject to the laws of the market. Yet access to safe drinkable water is a basic and universal human right, since it is essential to human survival and, as such, is a condition for the exercise of other human rights. Our world has a grave social debt towards the poor who lack access to drinking water, because they are denied the right to a life consistent with their inalienable dignity. This debt can be paid partly by an increase in funding to provide clean water and sanitary services among the poor. But water continues to be wasted, not only in the developed world but also in developing countries which possess it in abundance. This shows that the problem of water is partly an educational and cultural issue, since there is little awareness of the seriousness of such behaviour within a context of great inequality.

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#34

Post by pvaldes »

randyrand wrote: post #2

I'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'm not sure what a right to water really means.

Right to safe water. It means that the water in your kitchen faucet is expected/guaranteed to be safe to drink.

It must not have: noxious bacteria causing diarrhea, or liver parasite eggs, or mud, or mercury/heavy metals, or remains of faeces, or fracking methane, or pesticides, or medicines, or obesogens [1].

It must had been professionally filtered and treated to assure that none of those reach your home.

If you pay for water classified as "drinking water", you should not receive grey water, soapy bubbles, oily mud or anything else. This is the standard in all first country nations and I assume that it should be the same in US.

[1] And if in your small town everybody is obese, before to blame everybody for eating too much, or being lazy couch potatos, look for chemicals in the drinking water, leading to a broken satiety system, causing people to eat huge amounts of food. This is why the right to have safe drinking water is so important.

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#35

Post by impossiblefork »

JackFr wrote: post #11
impossiblefork wrote: post #3

I 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 argument is the choice of the plaintiff. It’s not the role of the judge to argue the plaintiff’s case and find the most compelling argument.

What I'm saying though, is that he has room enough to interpret things so that a dismissal isn't necessary.

It isn't the job of the courts to make minimal rulings and avoiding all substantial questions, but to solve disputes. Here we have a case where the government has harmed people in a way that would be a tort if it had been done by anybody else, and people arguing that the government by doing so breached a right. There is presumably a right which can be interpreted as guaranteeing that people's bodies won't be messed with, or things in the US would be quite strange, so there's room to do something useful here, and the judge's choice is not forced.

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#36

Post by shevy-java »

The judge evidently is just a tool employed by Trump - against the people. Interesting that there may still be anyone who is not super-rich be a supporter of Trump if you give them factual evidence like this here. But ignoring this for the moment, the judge says that damage by drinking is exempt from other damage. This makes no sense. Even the USA has protection laws against harm. For instance, liability claims of medical damage and what not; even with the current administration, e. g. damage caused by a vaccine (in rare cases). So the judge is totally inconsistent here - the argument that damage via contaminated water should not be considered, makes objectively no sense. AI would do a better job than this "judge".

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#37

Post by mdp2021 »

quotemstr wrote: post #29
mdp2021 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still not that simple: > The Jackson plaintiffs alleged that their city government deliberately withheld information about the water’s toxicity, and exacerbated the problem through a series of boil-water notices - a practice that can eliminate some bacterial contamination, but also concentrates lead in water. Engelhardt stated there is no “constitutional right to truthful information from officials during a public he…

Where is the constitution does it say the state can't do that?

We would ask you to rephrase - and, if we interpreted correctly, to reread.

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#38

Post by raverbashing »

themgt wrote: post #30

Plaintiffs ... seek recognition of two new constitutional rights lacking any foundation in the history and tradition of our Nation—the right to be free from exposure to contaminated water and the right to accurate information from public officials. This is like filing a bug report that the Linux kernel allowed your Thunderbird to receive SPAM email containing false information. It's just a fundamental misunderstandin…

100% this

These headlines is just press fodder for the grievances-industrial-complex to cry about how the gov is incompetent

Of course drinking water is important - I'm not questioning that

But there's a difference between a meaningless statement of "everybody should have the right to cleaning water" which is a vapid statement and actually building towards it (with regulation on the quality of water, EPA, working on water treatment, etc)

"Right to cleaning water" is like saying "you should move more" to a fat person

Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules

#39

Post by noja »

raverbashing wrote: post #38
themgt wrote: post #30

Plaintiffs ... seek recognition of two new constitutional rights lacking any foundation in the history and tradition of our Nation—the right to be free from exposure to contaminated water and the right to accurate information from public officials. This is like filing a bug report that the Linux kernel allowed your Thunderbird to receive SPAM email containing false information. It's just a fundamental misunderstandin…

100% this These headlines is just press fodder for the grievances-industrial-complex to cry about how the gov is incompetent Of course drinking water is important - I'm not questioning that But there's a difference between a meaningless statement of "everybody should have the right to cleaning water" which is a vapid statement and actually building towards it (with regulation on the quality of water, EPA, working on…

Why is someone who wants non-contaminated drinking water incompetent?
Post reply on HN