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

181–190 of 190 posts

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

#181

Post by rayiner »

gpvos wrote: post #179
rayiner wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes, it’s the european model rooted in Prussian imperial bureaucracy versus the American model rooted in the wisdom of the crowds. You’re welcome to like your approach better. But our approach has an impeccable track record.

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

#182

Post by earth-tattoo »

softwaredoug wrote: post #178
earth-tattoo wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, M…

That is definitely not a random sample.

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

#183

Post by johnnyanmac »

dotancohen wrote: post #129
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.

If a place is especially dry or inaccessible, then the lack of water should be one of the considerations for establishing a community there. This idea that no matter the expense or engineering constraints, the government must drag out the pipes and infrastructure to your private retreat, will be putting people in dangerous situations and a complete waste of scarce resources. I think that perhaps you don't understand…

>then the lack of water should be one of the considerations for establishing a community there.

People don't get to choose their birthplace, and circumstances change. Worrying about pottable water should be a solved problem in a first world country.

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

#184

Post by tzs »

impossiblefork wrote: post #154
tzs wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

When you file a lawsuit you basically say two things:

1. Defendant(s) did this things which harmed me.

2. This violates these specific laws and you list those laws and explain how the things from #1 violate them.

The trial court determines which of the things in #1 that you allege are true. Then, if they determine that at least some of them are true, they figure out which of the specific laws from #2 were violated.

The losing party can appeal. The appellate court takes as given whichever of the things in #1 that the trial court found to be true, and just reviews the trial court's application of the laws.

It is possible that the trial court will notice (and it they don't the defendant will bring it to their attention) that even if everything you claim in #1 is true, it would not violate any of the laws you listed in #2. The trial court will them dismiss the case unless you file an amendment that fixes the problem. The dismissal will be "without prejudice" which means you can later file again with a hopefully better drafted complaint.

The important thing here is you don't just go to courts saying "These people hurt me in this way, please punish them". You have to be specific, saying "These people broke these specific laws. Here are the things they did that broke those laws".

In this case plaintiffs said those laws were ones that had not before been interpreted as applying to their situation. The lower courts dismissed the case. The appellate court decided that those laws indeed do not apply, so dismissed the case.

They are not saying plaintiffs were not injured. Plaintiffs are free to continue legal action--they just have to sue using laws that do apply to their situation.

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

#185

Post by gpvos »

rayiner wrote: post #181
gpvos wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, it’s the european model rooted in Prussian imperial bureaucracy versus the American model rooted in the wisdom of the crowds. You’re welcome to like your approach better. But our approach has an impeccable track record.

That's... a matter of interpretation, if I'm reading the news of what's happening over there. I'm quite happy we got the 2.0 version of separation of powers here, as well as a constitution that's a little less set in stone.

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

#186

Post by dotancohen »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #183
dotancohen wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a place is especially dry or inaccessible, then the lack of water should be one of the considerations for establishing a community there. This idea that no matter the expense or engineering constraints, the government must drag out the pipes and infrastructure to your private retreat, will be putting people in dangerous situations and a complete waste of scarce resources. I think that perhaps you don't understand…

>then the lack of water should be one of the considerations for establishing a community there. People don't get to choose their birthplace, and circumstances change. Worrying about pottable water should be a solved problem in a first world country.

That's why I said "one of the considerations for establishing a community".

  > Worrying about pottable water should be a solved problem in a first world country.
I see that you've never lived somewhere with water scarcity.

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

#187

Post by johnnyanmac »

dotancohen wrote: post #186
johnnyanmac wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>then the lack of water should be one of the considerations for establishing a community there. People don't get to choose their birthplace, and circumstances change. Worrying about pottable water should be a solved problem in a first world country.

That's why I said "one of the considerations for establishing a community". > Worrying about pottable water should be a solved problem in a first world country. I see that you've never lived somewhere with water scarcity.

I didn't get to "establish a community". For several reasons, some historical. I didn't start the fire.

>I see that you've never lived somewhere with water scarcity.

I live in the US, so no. Despite all the droughts and cautions to use less water (even though it's rarely personal water usage that is causing such water shortages), it hasn't hit a point where I need to ration liquid.

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

#188

Post by dotancohen »

vrganj wrote: post #143
dotancohen wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What national government _does_ guarantee safe drinking water to its citizens? You are attacking the legitimacy of the US government by holding it to a standard that no nation on Earth is held to. The US has regulations and they are enforced, with some local problems. Just like every other nation on Earth.

You did a neat rhetorical trick there where you swapped out "recognizing a right" for "guarantee". A right is not a guarantee of perfect outcomes. Most countries do recognize the right, though implementation is obviously challenging. The US abstained, tellingly: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/687112?ln=en

The rhetorical trick was not mine. There are numerous people in this comment thread that used the word guarantee as a synonym or implied outcome of the word right.

What do you think a right is, if not a guarantee?

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

#190

Post by vrganj »

dotancohen wrote: post #188
vrganj wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You did a neat rhetorical trick there where you swapped out "recognizing a right" for "guarantee". A right is not a guarantee of perfect outcomes. Most countries do recognize the right, though implementation is obviously challenging. The US abstained, tellingly: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/687112?ln=en

The rhetorical trick was not mine. There are numerous people in this comment thread that used the word guarantee as a synonym or implied outcome of the word right. What do you think a right is, if not a guarantee?

Do you think there's never been an instance of an unfair trial in the US despite the codified right to a fair trial?

A right is always just a declaration of aspiration and an accountability mechanism should said aspiration not be lived up to - it cannot by itself guarantee any outcome because implementation will always be imperfect.

Post reply on HN