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

151–160 of 190 posts

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

#151

Post by tzs »

impossiblefork wrote: post #76
petcat wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, of course, but he interprets the arguments and evidence presented to them. Here he chooses to interpret what they say as demanding the recognition of a new constitutional right to safe water and to correct information. It is not at all clear that that's a good choice. He could equally well interpret the situation by analogy: the government deliberately tricked people into drinking unsafe water, and people were,…

Again, the plaintiffs choose the argument. They choose to use a statute, 42 U.S. Code § 1983, that starts:

> Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law [...]

and what they said they had been deprived of is their substantive due process rights.

The plaintiffs brought a Constitutional argument. The court ruled on the Constitutional argument.

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

#152

Post by lukan »

ptero wrote: post #125
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.)

> the right to accurate information from public officials, I thought that was indeed an absolute and basic right in a democracy In many countries, both democratic and not, police can lie (e.g. to try to get a suspect make a mistake and expose some information).

But even police in interrogation mode may not lie that will result in lead poisening.

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

#153

Post by rayiner »

brookst wrote: post #114
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?

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. B…

Fact-finding is a subsidiary function of courts that is cabined by two important principles. First, there must be a cause of action: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cause_of_action. Courts cannot just go fact-finding on their own. Common law or statute must have articulated a specific set of factual conditions that gives rise to a legal claim for relief. So courts can engage in fact-finding, but only within very specific guardrails outlined in the laws that govern the cause of action.

Second, courts must avoid intruding into the work of the political branches: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/political_question_doctrine. You can't turn to the courts to adjudicate what facts are "accurate" in the context of a political debate.

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

#154

Post by impossiblefork »

tzs wrote: post #151
impossiblefork wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, of course, but he interprets the arguments and evidence presented to them. Here he chooses to interpret what they say as demanding the recognition of a new constitutional right to safe water and to correct information. It is not at all clear that that's a good choice. He could equally well interpret the situation by analogy: the government deliberately tricked people into drinking unsafe water, and people were,…

Again, the plaintiffs choose the argument. They choose to use a statute, 42 U.S. Code § 1983, that starts: > Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or im…

Yes, but surely it's a deprivation of rights to trick someone into drinking poison?

Isn't that even how the gas chambers at some extermination camps worked? They tell you it's showers and you go in "voluntarily"?

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

#155

Post by tzs »

The article makes it sound like this was a ruling from one judge. In fact it was a 15 judge panel. The article is talking about the majority ruling, which was joined by 10 judges. The judge they name is the judge the chief judge assigned to write the majority opinion.

The other 5 judges wrote a separate opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part.

The article did do something quite well that way too many articles on court rulings fail to do. That is link to the actual ruling [1].

It is probably best to just read that directly if you want to actually understand what is going on.

[1] 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

#156

Post by rayiner »

gpvos wrote: post #109
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?

To be sure, there's a good discussion to be had about this, whether it should be the parliament or the judiciary that can rule over this, or both, and different countries have different balances in this area. Generally speaking however, the law and especially the constitution is full of abstract and fuzzy concepts, and judges have ample experience in adjudicating those, as well as balancing them against each other. A…

> And don't come to me with alt-right reasoning about what is accurate, true or false. Basic truth isn't too hard to determine.

This isn't some newfangled "alt-right reasoning." Orwell criticized the "Ministry of Truth" half a century ago. More fundamentally, it reflects the U.S. Founders' axiomatic understanding that nobody can be trusted. They did not create a system where lawyers and judges are the "microkernel of the operating system," being trusted to perform critical functions such as "enforcing the law" and "deciding basic truths." Indeed, in the Founders' system, individuals can't even sue the government except in narrow circumstances with the government's consent.

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

#157

Post by tzs »

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?

I believe that "accurate" in this context means "not knowingly a lie" rather than "is objectively correct". The allegation is that city officials knew the water was not safe to drink but told residents that it was safe.

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

#158

Post by tonyhart7 »

mindboggled725 wrote: post #115
stuartjohnson12 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

and what's wrong with that ????

safe to drink water available for free is great

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

#159

Post by evancox100 »

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 ruling expressly states that they are free to pursue whatever tort claims they want. This ruling is about violations of constitutional rights and standing to sue under 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights.
Post reply on HN