61–70 of 190 posts
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.
You forgot the actual argument about why this want and this way of getting it is a sign of incompetence
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US Constitution, by itself, grants US citizens everything as a right, then enumerates the exceptions to those all-encompassing rights carved out as necessary for the operation of a government. The correct question is: Where does the US Constitution grant governments the power to poison and lie to residents? This isn’t some pedantry but fundamental American civics. The US Constitution explicitly does not enumerate…
By this logic, state employees and elected officials, who are themselves US citizens, have the right to say anything at all to the public, including blatant lies about public health issues, because there's no specific legal exception banning them from doing so.
After reading that, please do tell where the power to poison water and lie about it is granted to the government, and the members of that government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Not everything you want - or need - is a right. Ok, agreed. But safe drinking water, should maybe be one of the exceptions? > And establishing a new right is not the only way to get what you want or need. What's a better way to guarantee safe drinking water to everyone?
If we invert it to the actual reality (many places have unsafe drinking water), then we get "the right to avoid being poisoned by your government".
It sounds obvious to me that that should already be the case.
But I don't know much about water treatment. Maybe it isn't always feasible?
Do people just have to drink bottled water in some places? Or get reverse osmosis filters?
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…
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 a…
I don't think there's any reason to assume that obesity is caused by any specific chemical found in some but not all drinking water, in such a way that explains differences in obesity rates. If that were the case we probably would've figured that out by now and would be systematically treating drinking water to remove that chemical.
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…
[flagged]
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.