4 ms·
Plaintiffs ... seek recognition of two new constitutional rights lacking any foundation in the history and tradition of our Nation—the right to be free from exp
by themgt 2mo ago
Plaintiffs ... seek recognition of two new constitutional rights lacking any foundation in the history and tradition of our Nation—the right to be free from exposure to contaminated water and the right to accurate information from public officials.
This is like filing a bug report that the Linux kernel allowed your Thunderbird to receive SPAM email containing false information. It's just a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government is designed to work. Closed by Fifth Circuit as WONTFIX, file request for constitutional amendment (RFC) if desired.
- raverbashing 2mo ago100% this These headlines is just press fodder for the grievances-industrial-complex to cry about how the gov is incompetent Of course drinking water is important - I'm not questioning that But there's a difference between a meaningless statement of "everybody should have the right to cleaning water" which is a vapid statement and actually building towards it (with regulation on the quality of water, EPA, working on water treatment, etc) "Right to cleaning water" is like saying "you should move more" to a fat person
- noja 2mo agoWhy is someone who wants non-contaminated drinking water incompetent?
- dotancohen 2mo agoNot everything you want - or need - is a right. And establishing a new right is not the only way to get what you want or need.
- stuartjohnson12 2mo agoI 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.
- mindboggled725 2mo ago[flagged]
- UncleMeat 2mo agoThat’s not what the outcome of this case would be if it went in the other direction. In this case the state told the people that the water it was already providing was safe, when in fact it was contaminated with lead. This case was about a 1983 suit for state officials knowingly violating a constitutional right. Few constitutional rights create affirmative responsibility for the state to provide for them. Pretty much just public defenders.
- tonyhart7 2mo agoand what's wrong with that ???? safe to drink water available for free is great
- raverbashing 2mo agoGuarantee of safe water is a right (as given by EPA regulations, etc) But it is not a constitutional right Because putting it where it doesn't belong, without any quantification, is meaningless
- UncleMeat 2mo agoWhat is the remedy? There isn’t a private cause of action through the state courts and suing the government itself will end up with sovereign immunity. If they can’t raise a 1993 claim, how specifically do you expect them to sue?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- dotancohen 2mo agoIf 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 what a right means, in the context of government services.
- hatefulheart 2mo agoStop editing your ridiculous comment. Rights are enshrined by society, it’s what we choose. Nothing is a right in and of itself contrary to what your comment tries to imply.
- BetterThanSober 2mo agoThe natural state of being is freedom, it up to society to restrict what they deemed necessary and punish the offenders. Unless the body of water or reservoir are claimed by the government then it is free for anyone to use, quality notwithstanding. Safe, clean water implies certain amount of processing and I agree that unless it is explicitly written then it is up to the users to sanitize that water
- vrganj 2mo ago> The natural state of being is freedom That is an ideological assertion, not a fact.
- UncleMeat 2mo agoThe position is not that the government needs to ensure that all bodies of water are potable or that the government needs to provide clean water to every resident. The claim is that you have a 1983 case against state officials that tell you that the municipal water is clear when they know it is in fact contaminated with lead.
- dotancohen 2mo ago> Stop editing your ridiculous comment. Do I not have a right to add that second sentence to my comment? Are you offended by me exercising that right? Your demand is ridiculous, doubly so in a conversation about rights.
- UncleMeat 2mo agoIf a state official interferes with this you could have a 1983 claim.
- 2mo ago
- pvaldes 2mo agoThe authorities assuring that the drinking water that is sold to you is really of drinking water grade is the most basic of the basic rights. Not a luxury. The "right to culture almonds" or to have a pool is a different question.
- embedding-shape 2mo ago> Not everything you want - or need - is a right. Ok, agreed. But safe drinking water, should maybe be one of the exceptions? > And establishing a new right is not the only way to get what you want or need. What's a better way to guarantee safe drinking water to everyone?
- andai 2mo ago> safe drinking water, should maybe be one of the exceptions? If we invert it to the actual reality (many places have unsafe drinking water), then we get "the right to avoid being poisoned by your government". It sounds obvious to me that that should already be the case. But I don't know much about water treatment. Maybe it isn't always feasible? Do people just have to drink bottled water in some places? Or get reverse osmosis filters?
- bluefirebrand 2mo ago> Do people just have to drink bottled water in some places That would be really convenient for companies that sell bottled water
- dotancohen 2mo agoI've been to a few islands that must import bottled drinking water. The citizens themselves do, not the government. I actually got stuck on one such island once, for one night with my then-twelve-year-old. First thing we did after securing a place to sleep, was acquire water.
- OroPla 2mo agoNot necessarily, which is also why animals do not have rights. A right isn't always the correct solution to a problem. For example, if your tap water is poisonous, but you can get safe drinking water from a store, you right to safe drinking water would be satisfied by what the store provides. I'd say the main issue in this story is that the danger was known, but not disclosed.
- noja 2mo agoWhat is drinking water for then, if not for drinking?
- thrance 2mo agoYou're not making an argument there. The people, through the government, chooses what is a right and what isn't. Not you alone. Clean drinking water seems pretty fucking important to me, and to a lot of other people too, it seems.
- eviks 2mo agoBut this are just empty statements. You forgot the actual argument about why this want and this way of getting it is a sign of incompetence
- vrganj 2mo agoBut maybe it should be? What does it say about the US government apparatus and its basic claims to legitimacy if it can't even guarantee safe drinking water? What lack of aspiration and ambition does such a denial demonstrate? Why should its citizens accept such an abdication of even the most basic duties?
- dotancohen 2mo agoWhat 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.
- vrganj 2mo agoYou 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 https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/687112?ln=en
- dotancohen 2mo agoThe 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?
- vrganj 2mo agoDo 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.
- earth-tattoo 2mo ago[flagged]
- vrganj 2mo ago"Plugging"? You mean "fundamentally altering the self-perception of the country founded on immigration"?
- earth-tattoo 2mo agoUSA doesn't need immigration anymore
- vrganj 2mo agoI'm not sure how this questionable statement is in any way connected to my above comment. At least try to be coherent?
- softwaredoug 2mo agoThere 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.
- earth-tattoo 2mo agoThrown out by Obama appointmented judges?
- softwaredoug 2mo agoA 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
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2mo agoGenerally, I've seen courts derive this kind of right from general rights like "the state cannot just arbitrarily kill or maim you", which (hopefully) are explicitly written down. So it doesn't feel that unreasonable to ask the court to specify that "the state cannot just arbitrarily kill or maim you" extends to "the state cannot arbitrarily lie to you in ways that will endanger your life/health".
- shiandow 2mo agoAnd in all reasonable circumstances the court would agree. Poisoning the water supply is an act of war let alone an illegal act of violence.
- nosioptar 2mo agoWe have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I'm not sure how the hell anyone can excersize that right without accurate info from the government.
- gpvos 2mo agoThe 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.)
- dgellow 2mo agoTime to stop considering the US a democracy? It feels the country is it’s own weird system now, not sure how to classify it but something I would call Trumpocracy. The democratic processes don’t seem to serve the people, it’s all hacks to try to use the system against itself to entrench the administration ideology (some might draw parallels to history here)
- gpvos 2mo agoParts of it still work, but the core is rotten.
- dgellow 2mo agoThe local democratic processes seem to be in better shape than at the federal level. At least as seen from afar
- markvdb 2mo agohttps://www.v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy_Report_2026_lowres.pdf https://www.v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy...
- dgellow 2mo agoNow I want to read a version of that report with 2026 events taken in account. It feels like the US is on its way to be an elected autocracy according to that framework
- 2mo ago