A Trump-appointed judge also said Americans have no “constitutional right to truthful information” during a public health crisis.
On Friday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against the city of Jackson, Mississippi, which alleged the city knowingly let residents drink lead-contaminated water.
The lawsuit, first filed in 2022, says the contamination violated Jacksonians’ constitutional right to bodily integrity. Donald Trump-appointed judge Kurt Engelhardt disagreed. “The Constitution does not provide redress for every governmental wrongdoing,” Engelhardt said.
“Defendants’ actions allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of clean water and guileless information. These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.”
106 Comments
usernameofthisaccount@piefed.social · 99 pts · 1d
How do spineless, soulless morons become judges? There seems to be a lot of them.
DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world · 65 pts · 1d
Money money money. This is when I can say America is finally in the medieval era. Healthcare for the kings/lords, diseases in everything including food and even the water can be poison. Just like the old days.
Kirp123@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1d
They get appointed.
Davel23@fedia.io · 11 pts · 1d
By other spineless, soulless morons.
BurgerBaron@quokk.au · 2 pts · 1d
Given there's no apparent resistance I lack evidence of an opposing group.
Goodeye8@piefed.social · 0 pts · 1d
Because the political system intrinsically defaults to a two party system making it very easy to entrench the two parties and create controlled opposition, which then works to squash actual resistance.
You can see it in action right now within the democratic party where a certain group of people would rather see them lose elections than support candidates who are looking to oppose the status quo.
BillCheddar@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 10h
Only an asshole could look at this situation and come up with a post blaming Democrats.
I would suggest you do better but let's face it, you can't and likely never will.
Goodeye8@piefed.social · 0 pts · 9h
I'm sorry, is the entire American political system "Democrats"? I said the entire system is rotten. I only used democrats as an example because that's literally the most recent example. I could've used the tea party as a republican example but why use a 15 year old example when there's an example happening right now?
Perhaps instead of telling me to do better you should be telling that to the establishment democrats who are not just against the DSA but also Abdul El-Sayed, who isn't even a socialist. Perhaps the one who should be doing better is you?
BillCheddar@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 8h
OK now you're just making shit up.
The first thing that happened after Abdul won his primary was the entire fucking establishment endorsed him.
So you're either a liar or completely misinformed. Let us know which, thanks.
Not that it matters because you'll just fucking lie about that answer, too.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 8 pts · 1d
Not to defend a trump judge, but it sounds like the ruling is simply that the constitution doesn't guarantee the particular right in question. Which is true. There's nothing in the constitution about this.
It's a matter of environmental law, sanitation, public health, etc. I'm sure there are laws that this situation violated, but the fact is that the laws it broke weren't in the constitution. So the plaintiff's lawyer kinda messed up by making this case about some made-up constitutional right and not the specific laws that are on the books at the state or federal level.
The case shouldn't be over. They just need to focus on laws that actually exist instead of some AI hallucinations about the constitution.
Tango@piefed.ca · 9 pts · 19h
Yep. Now, it should be mentioned that clean drinking water SHOULD be a constitutional right, but that's a matter for an amendment, not for a judge to unilaterally decide.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 16h
Of course. But yeah that's not the judge's purview
the_crotch@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 2h
This is similar to my take on roe v wade. The supreme Court looked at the constitution and said "oh, there's abortion, right there". It was inevitable it would get overturned because it's not actually in the constitution anywhere. The Dems had 50 years to pass an actual federal law and failed.
LadyMeow@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 58 pts · 1d
Well if judges had the right to not be harassed and have their houses burned, it would be in the constitution too!
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world · 54 pts · 1d
Says right here, "Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness."
Without clean water there's no life. With no life, there's no liberty, and no pursuing happiness.
How do you "promote the general welfare" with filthy, poisonous water?
This is like the most fundamental thing, even Rome provided clean water. We've been surpassed by ancient Rome.
credo@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 1d
Yes, but- Someone forgot to transfer that line to the constitution. We’re all going to die or become bonded corporate slaves because of an administrative oversight.
Edit: on second thought, maybe the first one was a well-written a call to arms and they knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the actual charter.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 15h
Not sure why I have to be the person in this thread to explain basic civics to everyone, but "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, it is not in the US Constitution.
The Declaration is not law, it was just a declaration. You can't cite it like this, that's not how it works.
cyberfae@piefed.social · 1 pts · 4h
It's actually in section 1 of the 14th amendment:
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 1h
Life, liberty, or property. No pursuit of happiness to be found.
humanspiral@lemmy.ca · -1 pts · 1d
The preamble to US constitition has zero legal bearing on the US. There has never been a legal case in the US where "preamble based natural justice" was accepted as a legitimate basis for complaint. If your complaint was only based on the preamble, normal judicial practice would be to dismiss it as frivolous, and force you to pay defendants' court costs.
TronBronson@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1d
That’s not even in the preamble of the constitution, that quote is from the Declaration of Independence. It also went on to say all men were created equal forgetting slavery
4am@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 1d
Well it does explain that the enumerated rights are a non-exclusive, non-exhaustive list. So while it doesn’t have any direct legal weight, it certainly explains how they expected the document to be interpreted
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works · 52 pts · 1d
"Oh look at me, I'm an entitled American. I want water to drink and to not be lied to. Wha Wha Wha"
You give people this and they'll start asking for healthcare next instead of just dying in the street with pride.
Bunch of greedy entitled fucks.
muffedtrims@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 1d
*Nestle enters the chat
kent_eh@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 12h
I'm sure Coke and Pepsi will also be happy to sell you bottled water priced at whatever the market will bear.
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1d
Who invited Steven Miller to this thread?
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 1d
Steven Miller has probably never been invited to anything. He just pops out from around a corner or behind a bush and your heart stops beating for a second.
thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works · 39 pts · 23h
Elections have consequences, everyone who stayed home and allowed Trump to be elected to two terms has enabled this.
I honestly don’t know if the US will actually be able to recover from those 6 (and counting) years, as an Aussie it feels like we’re watching the equivalent of the Fall of Rome in real time.
That bastard has managed to isolate you from your allies, line his pockets with billions of dollars, nearly bankrupt your country, destroy your military credibility, pollute your water, air & food, roll back your rights, and so much more.
It will take at least a generation to undo this damage, and I don’t think there’s enough political will to do what would need to be done to arrest this decline.
You will likely fall into oligarchy, to become another Russia in my lifetime. Just another regional brute, living off the fear and intimidation you were able to impose on your glory years.
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 15h
I think it depends on how you define "recover". America will never be what it was.
green_link@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 12h
"old" america is never coming back. it never was. and by 'old' i mean like cold war or obama era, not racist sexist 30's/40's/50's america.
this 'new'/currrent america might stick around for a bit, but it will be strained. it will get to a point where this new america fully breaks and ceases to exist (full civil war 2) and the country will be broken up. either into 2 new countries or breaking completely and all the states becoming their own country, which will invoke more war as states (and even other countries) fight each other for land and resources.
'mostly' world paece was amazing while it lasted. but billionairs didn't make enough money
kent_eh@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 12h
What it was isn’t as "great" as the stories Americans tell themselves.
They need to build back better.
bigmclargehuge@lemmy.zip · 37 pts · 1d
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Opening line of the Constitution. Pretty sure anything bold could be applied to safe, clean drinking water.
spacegoat@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 1d
Conservatives have no concept of truth, justice, or rule of law. They wield the law as a weapon and ignore it when it suits them.
ryper@lemmy.ca · 32 pts · 1d
The judges there regularly issue decisions so far right even SCOTUS won't get on board. "Fifth Circuit" really ought to be in the headline of articles about their ridiculous decisions. It's the Fifth Circuit doing Fifth Circuit things.
cley_faye@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 21h
In some parts of the world, people are thinking about UBI.
In other parts of the world, having safe drinking water is put into question.
pentastarm@piefed.ca · 18 pts · 1d
Suavevillain@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 15h
Yeah lets wrap this US gov up at this point. No right to clean water and the truth lol.
PhoenixDog@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 15h
You will drink sludge and accept our lies like the good little American sheep you are.
CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 12h
Oh, it was a conservative deciding this. This tracks.
PlaidBaron@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 1d
Do Americans have any rights anymore?
YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca · 16 pts · 1d
Only if you’re rich.
CaptPretentious@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 1d
Those aren't Americans. Those are rich people with American money vacationing in America.
ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk · 13 pts · 9h
What exactly do Americans have the right to...?
absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz · 7 pts · 8h
Spend money so the rich can get richer.
ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 7h
Nothing unless they are rich.
PangurBan@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 7h
Nothing unless it's in the constitution. Judge is technically correct.
We should probably change that.
webadict@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2h
Well, yes and no.
Technically, several rights not listed in the constitution are guaranteed to the States or the people by the 10th Amendment. Which, I guess by default makes it in the Constitution?
smeenz@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 6h
The right to claim that they have rights.
Tiger666@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 12h
Then what is the point of governance?
MountainVeil@slrpnk.net · 5 pts · 9h
In the USA? To protect and serve the rich.
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 10h
to build roads and maintain the world's strongest defensive military, of course. y'know, the things people need?
people don't need safe drinking water, duh
fartographer@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 1d
Sooooo... Abortion is cool, right? Either they're humans and not entitled to the necessities to live, or they're not humans and can have separate constitutional rights.
Or maybe there's a third option here? Is there something special about people from Jackson, Mississippi that would preclude them from enjoying constitutional/human rights?
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 11 pts · 23h
they want flint to be repeated in every state.
wewbull@feddit.uk · 11 pts · 7h
If only the US had integrated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into law. It's only 78 years old. Guess they haven't had time yet.
Article 25
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 11h
Ofc not. This colony was founded by literal enslavers. It's hard to enslave a comfortable population with their basic needs met. No water, no food, no shelter, no healthcare... Instead it's "freeze peach" and corporate personhood.
cloudshouter@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 1d
It shouldn’t have been a “right to safe drinking water”, it’s an assumption of risk issue. The default setting in the US for a few generations is that the tap water is safe to drink. This reeeally smells like a malicious ruling.
supernicepojo@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1d
What about the water youre paying for that had the implied value of being safe. Being defrauded by a group selling the water is a crime and every customer should have access to what they are paying for.
Redditisbollocks@feddit.uk · 9 pts · 1d
Land of the Free motherfuckers!
ulkesh@piefed.social · 9 pts · 12h
Because fuck the common good, right?
humanspiral@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 1d
Spirit of bill of rights, even if it didn't say so explicitly, would include "Government shall not kill you for no reason, or tell you that killing you is good for you". Bill of rights is weak, because, rightfully speech that "falsely yells fire in a crowded theater" should be infringed/persecuted. But speech where the government/puppet media tells you "this is fine, when theater/contry is on fire" is far more dangerous, when entire oligarchy/zionist stooge establishment reinforces the lies.
nanometer1625@thelemmy.club · 6 pts · 22h
This is pretty fucking obvious to anyone who has received a water bill.
adarza@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 12h
our public utility used to include reports from regular testing in with the bills.. they make them available online now (cost saving, it was a specially-printed multi-page insert before), but it's still public information.
Tacky4092@feddit.org · 4 pts · 21h
That's not the same, dumbass
PhoenixDog@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 15h
A water bill is so the treatment plants can continue running at utmost capacity.
Should that just be tied into municipal taxes? Maybe. You're not paying for clean water, you're paying for the system and the people who help keep it clean.
Tiger666@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 10h
You are paying for wealth extraction. Ftfy
PhoenixDog@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 9h
I mean, I own my home and I don't have a water bill so I'm personally not paying for anything. But it's the same as power, your Internet, etc. You're paying for not only the item you're receiving but also for the service it gets to you, and the service to keep it up and running.
I pay for a plumber to come and fix my pipes. The money I pay them doesn't just pay for the service I received, the company also uses some of that to hire more people, improve their training, upgrade their equipment, etc.
BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 1d
Buy some top tier filters, people, you're going to need it!
robomuffin79@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
US citizens are unwittingly time travelling back to a palaeolithic style of life. You want the government to provide clean water? “F**k you!” replies Uncle Sam
SabinStargem@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 23h
It is time to unga-bunga Uncle Sam with this oversized club.
Archangel1313@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 1d
This absolutely needs to be the next amendment added to the Constitution.
cloudshouter@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 1d
We can’t get an amendment to say women get fair and equal protection. You expect something to pass that helps black communities?
SabinStargem@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 23h
We need a wholly new Constitution. The old one had many good ideas, but the implementation and a lack of lessons learned is rendering it useless.
magnue@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 22h
Foreshadowing
bobbyfiend@retrolemmy.com · 5 pts · 1d
It honestly sounds like the judge has a point. The plaintiffs contended that there was a constitutional right. There doesn't appear to be, in Mississippi.
fodor@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 16h
That depends if you agree with the Declaration of Independence. Do you think that all men are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? If you do, then you think that they are entitled to non-poisoned water, or at least for the government to make a reasonable effort to provide said water.
But look, this is something that's hard for American court systems to grasp. In the United States when people talk about rights, they typically only think about the Bill of Rights. And that's a subset of our rights.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 16h
Yeah this is total bullshit and all, but The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document. It's irrelevant to the situation, unfortunately. You can't walk into a court and cite the Declaration of Independence as law or precedent.
I mean, I guess you could, but no judge would take you seriously because that's not how jurisprudence works in the US.
Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 10h
Entitled to does not me provided. It means not blocked, or not taken away. You could argue that by not telling the people, that they blocked their right, but that's a bit of a stretch. Essentially the peolle where always free to buy clean water from the store, or go to some other source.
If it meant provide... healthcare would be free, as that is part of the pursuit of life.
What this may be, is fraud. They charged the people for the water. I am sure somewhere in various publications they call it safe. If the levels were higher than some publication with reasonable authority on the subject calls safe, that would be fraud. The article however didn't go into those details. I suspect that while the levels were considered by many to be unsafe, there probably lacks an authority on the exact levels that are safe. We ran into this with pur school district. They tested and found some levels were higher than typical guidance, but that "official" unsafe levels weren't present. So they called it safe. Only people who dug into the data realized they were sugar coating it. But they weren't legally lieing.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 12h
Not great but honestly not suprised.
Sunflier@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 23h
Well, he's sorta right. It's not explicitly in the text (though, one could argue it would maybe come from the 9th Amendment). The basis for the Clean Water Act and the EPA would arise out of Congress's power to promote a general welfare combined with regulating interstate commerce.
MasutaHarada@thelemmy.club · 1 pts · 22h
I think there are enough history lessons about conflict in society which water are main issue or cause of that in the first place.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 15h
Just wait until climate change has us fighting literal wars over it in a decade or two.
SabinStargem@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 1d
The Jacksonians should make this judge into a lamp ornament. This judge doesn't give a shit about the good of the nation nor the spirit of the Constitution, let alone the wellbeing of the people.
Gammelfisch@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2h
That is some 3rd World shit right there. Hire a plumber to reroute that asswipe's water supply.
Redditmodstouchgrass@lemmy.zip · -1 pts · 9h
Oh, will people finally shut up about tap water being safe in the US? I've been saying for years, I'm not drinking something if it tastes bad.
foggianism@lemmy.world · -31 pts · 1d
If clear drinking water was a human right in the US, then it would be covered by the Constitution as well.
theparadox@lemmy.world · 36 pts · 1d
If something was clearly, precisely defined in the constitution it would still be worthless if some group of rich cunts came to a consensus that it would be better for them if the courts were to interpret it differently.
The US legal system has a terminal case of corruption.
uberdroog@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 1d
Pursuit of happiness seemsbto include proper hydration for most.
Space_Cowboy92@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
This chud only thinks rights exist if they’re written on piece paper by someone 250 years ago. 🫵😂
What a fucking loser.
ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 1d
Is that a pun? Is it so good that I almost missed it? Was it on purpose? I am impressed.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 1d
The Constitution is already covered by yellow water and brown streaks.
Long past overdue for a refresh.
ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1d
These modern-day robber barons and self-appointed kings will ignore a "refreshed" Constitution (that eliminates all our remaining rights and anything left stopping them in the courts) just as easily as they ignore this one.
"Refresh" is a nice word for "scrap democracy and install a permanent oligarchy" because those who want to change this Constitution will stop at nothing less.
There's a reason the Constitution requires what it does to be changed, and it's actually very easy to amend the Constitution when you have bipartisan support for something: we've been doing it all along.
So instead of tossing out the whole thing, ask yourself why proposed amendments -- including one that was just overturned this week by the House to take the power of numbering SCOTUS justices away from Congress so that we remain at 19th century numbers -- are being blocked right and left. Hint: it's because they are generally unilateral shit, and an attempt to change the balance of power toward the executive, like this one.
TL;DR: Don't fuck with the Constitution until you've dealt with the overwhelming corruption and lawlessness that is currently making a joke of this one.
Jimbabwe@lemmy.world · -37 pts · 1d
If water was a right, anyone could have as much of it as they want to use for pretty much any reason.
fonix232@fedia.io · 36 pts · 1d
That's not what a right to clean drinking water means.
That's not even what "access to water is a human right" means.
Please stop being a dumbass.
Jimbabwe@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 1d
Rights are inalienable, meaning nobody can take them from you and they exist forever in perpetuity. Water is a finite resource. The two ideas are incompatible. I’m not making a statement about what policy should be implemented, just what words should be used.
fonix232@fedia.io · 3 pts · 12h
Water isn't a finite resource, genius.
It's actually infinitely recycled. You drink, you piss it out. Sure, for your lifespan you will be holding some 50-90kg in your body at any time, but that water goes right back into the ecosystem.
Similarly, any freshwater that goes into the seas and oceans end up circling back into freshwater due to evaporation -> clouds -> rainfall. You know, the water cycle? Third grade science class material?
Furthermore, the right to clear water doesn't mean one person or groups of people get to hog all the water. It should be based on need - and a person dying of dehydration should always be higher priority than some dumb AI datacenter used by millions of idiots to get wrong answers reinforced...
Jimbabwe@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 11h
Lol, too stupid to argue with.
BradleyUffner@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 1d
That's not how that works. Following your logic, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would mean anyone could do anything they want if it makes them happy, which is obviously not true.
Jimbabwe@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 1d
A person’s life and liberty and pursuit of happiness aren’t shared resources existing in finite amounts. Water is. I’m not making a statement about what policy should be implemented, just what words should be used. Rights are ephemeral and unalienable, and water is very much neither of those.
ElcaineVolta@kbin.melroy.org · 8 pts · 1d
you mean like animal agriculture and data centers do? moronic.
mabeledo@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 11h
If housing was a right, anyone could have as much of it as they want.
If healthcare was a right, anyone could have as much of it as they want.
If fucking air was a right, anyone could have as much of it as they want.