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

41–50 of 190 posts

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

#41

Post by quotemstr »

mdp2021 wrote: post #37
quotemstr wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"We"? Yeah, okay, Your Highness.

As for the content: the law says what it says. Where in the constitution of the United States of America and its amendments does it say that a state government must be truthful about public health statements?

The law says what it says. A behavior might be rotten, evil, illegal under other documents, and an all-round bad idea and still not a violation of, in particular, the constitution of the United States of America and its amendments

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

#42

Post by petcat »

impossiblefork wrote: post #35
JackFr wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

The judge can only rule on the arguments and evidence presented in their court.

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

#43

Post by dotancohen »

noja wrote: post #39
raverbashing wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not everything you want - or need - is a right.

And establishing a new right is not the only way to get what you want or need.

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

#44

Post by ianjbutler »

Smaug123 wrote: post #19
ianjbutler wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Defendants’ actions allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of clean water and guileless information. These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.” Nah, headline is optimistic actually: no right to clean water, to water tests, or to the truth about the tests if they occur. No right to healthcare, schools, or even deliverable mail either. But surely some of these are just th…

Sorry, I think your pull quote is actually contradicting your gloss. Again, the pull quote states that it doesn’t infringe any constitutional right, not that it doesn’t infringe any rights granted for any other reason?

Cool cool, I can see you've got a sharp eye for detail my friend but let's really get down to it. What exactly is it that you really want to defend here? Why do you want to defend it? And more to the point, do you like drinking clean water? Do you think people should have it or not?

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

#45

Post by u1hcw9nx »

IsTom wrote: post #9
Smaug123 wrote: post #5

Misleadingly 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.

Page 2 second paragraph."Rather, the remedy for Plaintiffs’ injuries lies in pursuing .." https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60370-CV1.pd...

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

#46

Post by stuartjohnson12 »

dotancohen wrote: post #43
noja wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is someone who wants non-contaminated drinking water incompetent?

Not everything you want - or need - is a right. And establishing a new right is not the only way to get what you want or need.

I am absolutely mindboggled at the idea that you think the US should not guarantee safe drinking water everywhere for everyone. Unless this comment is pedantic legal snark.

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

#47

Post by hatefulheart »

dotancohen wrote: post #43
noja wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is someone who wants non-contaminated drinking water incompetent?

Not everything you want - or need - is a right. And establishing a new right is not the only way to get what you want or need.

Stop editing your ridiculous comment.

Rights are enshrined by society, it’s what we choose. Nothing is a right in and of itself contrary to what your comment tries to imply.

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

#48

Post by randyrand »

latexr wrote: post #20
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.

Could we please not? In the first sentence of the article: > (…) alleged the city knowingly let residents drink lead-contaminated water. Knowingly let residents drink unsafe water. Surely you can see an issue there? Can we please make a collected effort to comment beyond the title? If you don’t know what “a right to safe water” means, then could you please do a web search to try to be minimally informed about the mat…

It needs more qualifications IMO. "reasonable access" perhaps? I mean how would you handle someone who drives their car into the desert or climbs to the top of a mountain and demands water?

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

#49

Post by klawed »

quotemstr wrote: post #41
mdp2021 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"We"? Yeah, okay, Your Highness. As for the content: the law says what it says. Where in the constitution of the United States of America and its amendments does it say that a state government must be truthful about public health statements? The law says what it says. A behavior might be rotten, evil, illegal under other documents, and an all-round bad idea and still not a violation of, in particular, the constitutio…

The gp points out that some states, (for example, Massachusetts) opt to put this in their own constitutions

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

#50

Post by wood_spirit »

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.

Imagine your well becomes contaminated. That might be natural, or it might be caused by eg fracking. If the latter, do you have any rights and recourse and does it make a difference if the poisoner is state, federal or private?

(I’m curious of my own situation as a European with my own well and also not so far from a well documented case against the government because their airbase fire fighting had contaminated groundwater with PFAS.)

Post reply on HN