4 ms·

It sounds worse than it is. The judge cited that the cause is admirable but there's no legislation which supports this and it isn't the courts job to legislate

It sounds worse than it is. The judge cited that the cause is admirable but there's no legislation which supports this and it isn't the courts job to legislate from the bench. There is overwhelming support for this so now the activists need to pressure state legislators to make it law. Once it's law then a court can determine if citizens are having their rights trampled on. We get into a lot of trouble when judges step outside their bounds.

redserk 2y ago
The last remark ignores that there are two tiers of legislation in our American system: the constitution (state or federal) which has acted as a “North Star” of sorts, and legislation passed by a body. What’s one person’s “step outside their bounds” is another’s perception of a “dereliction of duty”. That said, I don’t have a strong opinion on Florida’s case here in this regard as I would need to read more to understand it.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  This quote from the article is enlightening: >“Although it is an admirable goal, we know of no provision that is authorized in either general law or specifically granted in the State Constitution, nor has one been provided by Speak Up, which specifically provides a citizen the right to have a body of water that ‘flows, exists in its natural form, is free of pollution, and which maintains a healthy ecosystem,'” the judges wrote. I think the phrase he quoted was from the case filing. What would it mean if you took that literally? It would probably mean that a Floridian has a right for all of Florida's waterways to be untouched by human activity of any kind, as anything we do can potentially pollute or disturb ecosystems (even if to an insignificant degree). It would also mean that people whose property is under water or bounded by water would be severely restricted as to what can be done with their property. Part of a judge's job is to not waste everyone's time. If he does not think he has the authority to issue a legitimate ruling on the matter, it is his obligation to defer the issue to someone who can handle it properly, such as the legislature or a higher court.

redserk 2y ago

The last remark ignores that there are two tiers of legislation in our American system: the constitution (state or federal) which has acted as a “North Star” of sorts, and legislation passed by a body. What’s one person’s “step outside their bounds” is another’s perception of a “dereliction of duty”. That said, I don’t have a strong opinion on Florida’s case here in this regard as I would need to read more to understand it.

wakawaka28 2y ago
This quote from the article is enlightening: >“Although it is an admirable goal, we know of no provision that is authorized in either general law or specifically granted in the State Constitution, nor has one been provided by Speak Up, which specifically provides a citizen the right to have a body of water that ‘flows, exists in its natural form, is free of pollution, and which maintains a healthy ecosystem,'” the judges wrote. I think the phrase he quoted was from the case filing. What would it mean if you took that literally? It would probably mean that a Floridian has a right for all of Florida's waterways to be untouched by human activity of any kind, as anything we do can potentially pollute or disturb ecosystems (even if to an insignificant degree). It would also mean that people whose property is under water or bounded by water would be severely restricted as to what can be done with their property. Part of a judge's job is to not waste everyone's time. If he does not think he has the authority to issue a legitimate ruling on the matter, it is his obligation to defer the issue to someone who can handle it properly, such as the legislature or a higher court.