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

11–20 of 191 posts

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

#11

Post by JackFr »

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 argument is the choice of the plaintiff. It’s not the role of the judge to argue the plaintiff’s case and find the most compelling argument.

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

#12

Post by exe34 »

randyrand wrote: post #2

I'm not sure what a right to water really means. A lot of rural cities don't even provide water. People have wells and you pay for them yourself.

The first paragraph of tfa:

> lawsuit against the city of Jackson, Mississippi, which alleged the city knowingly let residents drink lead-contaminated water.

The "right" here is about other people not contaminating your well for their profit. You don't have that right. They can contaminate your well for their profit and you have to find another source of water at your own cost.

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

#13

Post by passwordreset »

randyrand wrote: post #2

I'm not sure what a right to water really means. A lot of rural cities don't even provide water. People have wells and you pay for them yourself.

I think it's covered under that "right to life" section of the Constitution. Deliberately poisoning people through their water supply seems like a sure-fire way to deny the right to life of your citizens.

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

#14

Post by cumshitpiss »

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.

[dead]

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

#15

Post by mdp2021 »

mbeavitt wrote: post #8

This 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.

Still not that simple:

> The Jackson plaintiffs alleged that their city government deliberately withheld information about the water’s toxicity, and exacerbated the problem through a series of boil-water notices - a practice that can eliminate some bacterial contamination, but also concentrates lead in water. Engelhardt stated there is no “constitutional right to truthful information from officials during a public health crisis”

The constitutional question (and note that state Constitutions, e.g. Massachusetts, may instead cover it) is just one piece of the mess.

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

#16

Post by Smaug123 »

IsTom wrote: post #9
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.

On the other hand it means that states can just not do that and leave their citizens without clean drinking water.

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?

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

#17

Post by ianjbutler »

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.

> Defendants’ actions allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of clean water and guileless information. These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.”

Nah, headline is optimistic actually: no right to clean water, to water tests, or to the truth about the tests if they occur. No right to healthcare, schools, or even deliverable mail either. But surely some of these are just the kind of thing you might expect as an absolute minimum everywhere if you have to pay taxes.

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

#18

Post by lukan »

"Engelhardt stated there is no “constitutional right to truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.” "

" “Defendants’ actions allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of clean water and guileless information. These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.”"

He basically says, the constitution does not care, whether the government lies to citizens, so they continue to drink poison water.

Well, I always though trust of citizens in government is the main thing a constitution should provide and establish, but the "Donald Trump-appointed judge Kurt Engelhardt" apparently thinks different.

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

#19

Post by Smaug123 »

ianjbutler wrote: post #17
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.

> Defendants’ actions allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of clean water and guileless information. These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.” Nah, headline is optimistic actually: no right to clean water, to water tests, or to the truth about the tests if they occur. No right to healthcare, schools, or even deliverable mail either. But surely some of these are just th…

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?

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

#20

Post by latexr »

randyrand wrote: post #2

I'm not sure what a right to water really means. A lot of rural cities don't even provide water. People have wells and you pay for them yourself.

Could we please not? In the first sentence of the article:

> (…) alleged the city knowingly let residents drink lead-contaminated water.

Knowingly let residents drink unsafe water. Surely you can see an issue there? Can we please make a collected effort to comment beyond the title?

If you don’t know what “a right to safe water” means, then could you please do a web search to try to be minimally informed about the matter before commenting? Took me two seconds to find a UN page.

https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/human-rights-water-and-s...

Again, on the first sentence, in bold:

> Access to water and sanitation are recognized by the United Nations as human rights – fundamental to everyone’s health, dignity and prosperity.

And on the second paragraph:

> Governments must take a human rights-based approach (HRBA) to water and sanitation improvements

There’s your right to water. It means that because it’s something fundamental to human life, nations have an (at a minimum moral, often legal) obligation to provide it or protect access to it to everyone under them that lacks it.

Just for good measure, here’s the Wikipedia page on Human Rights too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

Again, the first sentence already explains a lot.

Post reply on HN