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.”
If water was a right, anyone could have as much of it as they want to use for pretty much any reason.
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.
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.
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…
Lol, too stupid to argue with.
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.
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.
you mean like animal agriculture and data centers do? moronic.
deleted by creator