Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • Yes? Why would there be? This is a nation built on negative rights. If you pay taxes/fees to some institution for a service and the the institution fails to provide it, that's already covered by some contract law, no?

    I know this will be read as me saying they shouldn't have clean water. What I'm saying is that declaring a positive right is not an effective approach to satisfying that right in this country, or anywhere that I'm aware. But especially this country. If I was in that jurisdiction I would be kind of insulted if this was presented as a reasonable approach to secure clean water.

    by chermi
  • > He [judge] also said there was no constitutional right to “truthful information from officials during a public health crisis.”

    We should have "spirit of the law" courts. This is absurd.

    by Avicebron
  • > Rather, he said residents should take other paths to redress, including electing better representatives and petitioning the government for remedies.

    Is suing the government not essentially a petition for remedies? How else do you get the gov to listen?

    by bix6
  • Constitutional right? No. But, it's an abject failure of the local government overseeing the infrastructure to fix or solicit help to fix. Jackson, MS government failed. Targeting them on the grounds of a constitutional violation seems like borderline legal malpractice, but probably an unfortunate standard time wasting legal protocol, for lawyers to suggest this was a viable route to begin with.
    by tyjen
  • It's interesting how a lot of newer countries just put the right to water directly in the constitution. South Africa says some stuff about the government having an obligation toward "progressive realization" of the goal [1], whereas Slovenia just straight says water is a right [2].

    [1]: https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/chapter-2-bill-rig...

    [2]: https://www.uradni-list.si/glasilo-uradni-list-rs/vsebina/12...

    by dguest
  • The court ruling is here [1]. While this article is way better than the one from yesterday, it does have some big problems.

    Better to just take a look at the ruling itself. Note that it contains two opinions. First is the majority opinion, joined be 10 judges on the 15 judge panel. Then is an opinion joined by 5 judges that dissents in part and concurs in part.

    [1] https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60370-CV1.pd...

    by tzs
  • > alleged that the city knowingly allowed residents to drink unsafe water.

    Surely knowingly letting people drink lead contaminated water breaks other laws rather than their constitutional rights?

    by helsinkiandrew
  • This ruling seems obviously correct to me? The plaintiffs claimed this was a 14th amendment issue, but at the time the 14th was added cholera outbreaks were still somewhat common in the US and there was no remote notion of safe drinking water provided universally by municipal governments.

    Hopefully there is some other legal redress under a different law or EPA regulation, but the courts can't just give in to faulty reasoning like that because people were wronged by the government.

    by _--__--__

Explore Birbla archives