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

111–120 of 190 posts

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

#111

Post by throw93839394 »

vrganj wrote: post #100
throw93839394 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am not US citizen, I am (was) just a visitor (and consumer). I do not care about your local problems!

Jackson gov was happy to poison people to save face and money. Some other people are happy to poison people with chlorine, to save on plastics.

As a consumer, I have a right to choose whatever I feel is safe for me!

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

#112

Post by nosioptar »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #71
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…

Generally, I've seen courts derive this kind of right from general rights like "the state cannot just arbitrarily kill or maim you", which (hopefully) are explicitly written down. So it doesn't feel that unreasonable to ask the court to specify that "the state cannot just arbitrarily kill or maim you" extends to "the state cannot arbitrarily lie to you in ways that will endanger your life/health".

We have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I'm not sure how the hell anyone can excersize that right without accurate info from the government.

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

#113

Post by rascul »

gavinsyancey wrote: post #32
Smaug123 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't that what the safe drinking water act is for?

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

#114

Post by brookst »

rayiner wrote: post #98
gpvos wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There’s a map/territory error in conflating the right to accurate information (or the obligation of government officials to not knowingly lie) with court determination of what accurate information is in any specific case.

We have a very clear constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and yes, determining what that means is very fuzzy and always has been. Doesn’t make the right evaporate.

But even separating the two, the entire court system is literally designed to determine what’s true. From murder to false advertising, the courts exist to resolve disputes about what’s true.

If we’re saying they can’t or shouldn’t fulfill that role… what’s left? Just enforce the will of the current government, skipping all that stuff about testimony and fact-finding?

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

#115

Post by mindboggled725 »

stuartjohnson12 wrote: post #46
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.

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.

[flagged]

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

#116

Post by vrganj »

throw93839394 wrote: post #111
vrganj wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not simply a consumer. You're a citizen.

I am not US citizen, I am (was) just a visitor (and consumer). I do not care about your local problems! Jackson gov was happy to poison people to save face and money. Some other people are happy to poison people with chlorine, to save on plastics. As a consumer, I have a right to choose whatever I feel is safe for me!

Neither am I. But presumably you're a citizen of somewhere. And that place should provide you with safe drinking water.

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

#119

Post by iAMkenough »

rayiner wrote: post #98
gpvos wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Who decides what is slander or defamation?

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

#120

Post by [deleted] »

elcritch wrote: post #104
rayiner wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Congress is supposed to be the forum wherein this happens. It's intentionally a broader forum of people's representatives from the entire nation. If congress can't agree to a law then the federal government probably shouldn't be doing it, even if something is desirable.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN