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

91–100 of 190 posts

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

#91

Post by Brian_K_White »

You can have any number of mandates that aren't state or federal constitutional rights.

"Right" is the wrong word here. I think it's entirely correct that you have no "right" to clean or safe drinking water.

You have a right to persue that and all your other needs.

And you have a right to tell the government (collectively) to make drinking water a goal, collect taxes to pay for it, and issue mandates to whatever organizations needed to be responsible for making it happen.

Presumably all of that was already in effect since a long time ago, and the problem is various people not doing their jobs in good faith.

Somewhere along the way the people voted for officials who would establish safe municiple water. Somewhere along the way officials set the goals and hired the contractors and set up ongoing operation & maintainance, and that all involved some sort of official mandate with terms and goals written down. And somewhere along the way one or more people are guilty of not performing a duty they were responsible for.

We may not, but we should, have a right to good faith discharge of duties.

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

#92

Post by throw93839394 »

icedrift wrote: post #21
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.

The headline look pretty accurate to me. Under this ruling, being a US citizen does not guarantee you a constitutional right to safe drinking water; that right would depend on state legislation. I think the bigger deal is that the people of Jackson were lied to and this sets the precedent that there is no recourse. It's not like someone in Flint knowingly drank contaminated water, the city withheld the fact that thei…

There is another way to look at it.

As water consumer, I have a right not to trust officials about tap water quality, and buy my own drinking water in plastic bottles!

I use Jackson example, everytime someone pushes "tap water is safe" bs!

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

#93

Post by OroPla »

embedding-shape wrote: post #53
dotancohen wrote: post #43

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?

Not necessarily, which is also why animals do not have rights. A right isn't always the correct solution to a problem.

For example, if your tap water is poisonous, but you can get safe drinking water from a store, you right to safe drinking water would be satisfied by what the store provides.

I'd say the main issue in this story is that the danger was known, but not disclosed.

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

#94

Post by dgellow »

markvdb wrote: post #90
dgellow wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time to stop considering the US a democracy? It feels the country is it’s own weird system now, not sure how to classify it but something I would call Trumpocracy. The democratic processes don’t seem to serve the people, it’s all hacks to try to use the system against itself to entrench the administration ideology (some might draw parallels to history here)

https://www.v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy...

Now I want to read a version of that report with 2026 events taken in account. It feels like the US is on its way to be an elected autocracy according to that framework

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

#95

Post by watwut »

petcat wrote: post #42
impossiblefork wrote: post #35

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.

Except that supreme court justices do make their oen arguments.

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

#97

Post by djsjxndo3838bd »

lampe3 wrote: post #58

Crazy that the comments are about the title and the how the legal system should work or does not work but no one cares if the water they need to survive is drinkable or not. I am out of words for this comment section.

[flagged]

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

#98

Post by rayiner »

gpvos wrote: post #72
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…

The first one I can understand from history (although I do not agree for modern times). But the right to accurate information from public officials, I thought that was indeed an absolute and basic right in a democracy, and it should very strongly be and always have been. (Exceptions like "national security" notwithstanding, and those should probably be more narrowly restricted than they are now.)

I implore people to think about separation of powers. Just because something is desirable in the abstract doesn’t mean the judiciary should be doing it. Who decides what information is “accurate?” What are the implications of having the judiciary start policing the other two branches over such a fuzzy concept?

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

#99

Post by vrganj »

BetterThanSober wrote: post #63
hatefulheart wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The natural state of being is freedom, it up to society to restrict what they deemed necessary and punish the offenders. Unless the body of water or reservoir are claimed by the government then it is free for anyone to use, quality notwithstanding. Safe, clean water implies certain amount of processing and I agree that unless it is explicitly written then it is up to the users to sanitize that water

> The natural state of being is freedom

That is an ideological assertion, not a fact.

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

#100

Post by vrganj »

throw93839394 wrote: post #92
icedrift wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The headline look pretty accurate to me. Under this ruling, being a US citizen does not guarantee you a constitutional right to safe drinking water; that right would depend on state legislation. I think the bigger deal is that the people of Jackson were lied to and this sets the precedent that there is no recourse. It's not like someone in Flint knowingly drank contaminated water, the city withheld the fact that thei…

There is another way to look at it. As water consumer, I have a right not to trust officials about tap water quality, and buy my own drinking water in plastic bottles! I use Jackson example, everytime someone pushes "tap water is safe" bs!

You're not simply a consumer. You're a citizen.
Post reply on HN