Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
"Plugging"? You mean "fundamentally altering the self-perception of the country founded on immigration"?
USA doesn't need immigration anymore
You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
171–180 of 191 posts
Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
But even police in interrogation mode may not lie that will result in lead poisening.
Sure they can. Jails (run by the local police or sheriff) lie about the safety of the food they serve, the facilities they run, the outcomes of the policies they implement all the time.
Yes police can break the law, but they may not officially do so normally. At least not in my world.
Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I don’t have skin in this game, being from the increasingly oppressive UK and not the USA, but:
> what do you want to defend
Accuracy, and in this case people correctly knowing that their rights stem from some source (if they do! I don’t know the legal facts) or knowing the appropriate venue in which to campaign for them, rather than incorrectly believing that they don’t have rights and/or can’t get them.
> why do you want to defend it
Because words still have meanings, and people pretending they don’t, while screaming in ever more shrill tones at each other, is extremely tiresome, and the Internet is full of it.
Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
#174Crazy 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.
[deleted]
Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can’t really see how it can be reigned in and once it’s done with America it’s coming for everyone else. Australia with one nation and UK with reform for example. My honest assessment is the tech bros felt threatened from potential regulation and decided to do use their platforms and influence to encourage more of the same destruction everywhere else. I cannot explain it any other way. Why would nearly all of them ha…
> Can’t really see how it can be reigned in By political revolution. The coming, inevitable AI bubble implosion and the resulting chaos will provide for it. We are already seeing the first signs with local anti datacenter movements.
I just feel that people are too comfortable for that now, we have so many distractions from "tech" itself that I cannot imagine people actually revolting.
Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Plugging"? You mean "fundamentally altering the self-perception of the country founded on immigration"?
USA doesn't need immigration anymore
I'm not sure how this questionable statement is in any way connected to my above comment. At least try to be coherent?
Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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).
In the USA the police can lie to you, but you can not lie back to them. To do that is a crime.
[deleted]
Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
There basically is no election fraud In 2020 Trump admin tried very hard to find some and there attempts were thrown out in court 59/60 cases The only thing they won on involved a Pennsylvania judge extending mail in ballot deadline beyond their authority. Not a case of fraud.
Thrown out by Obama appointmented judges?
A sample of cases, their judges, and who appointed them
v. Wisconsin Elections Commission — federal district court, Brett Ludwig, Donald Trump
Same case — 7th Circuit appeal, Michael Scudder, Donald Trump
7th Circuit panel, Joel Flaum, Ronald Reagan
7th Circuit panel, Ilana Rovner, George H. W. Bush
Pennsylvania appeal, Trump v. Boockvar, Stephanos Bibas, Donald Trump
Pennsylvania district court, Trump v. Boockvar, Matthew Brann, Barack Obama
Michigan “Kraken” case, King v. Whitmer, Linda Parker, Barack Obama
Georgia “Kraken” case, Timothy Batten, George W. Bush
Arizona challenge, Diane Humetewa, Barack Obama
Georgia election challenge, Steven Grimberg, Donald Trump
Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 o…
Wow. If that is true, the US is an even more weird and unreliable country to live in than I thought, and I thank the Lord that I live in Europe.
Re: You Don't Have a Right to Safe Drinking Water, US Court Rules
#180This headline is not correct. The ruling was that a constitutional lawsuit was not successful, not that the the US government has carte blanche to poison its citizens drinking water… So, the correct headline would be “safe drinking water ruled not to be covered by the US constitution”. There are other binding agreements and regulations than the constitution in the US.
Mother Jones skewing the narrative? Say it ain’t so!