9 ms·

> Defendants’ actions allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of clean water and guileless information. These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deepl

> Defendants’ actions allegedly deprived Plaintiffs of clean water and guileless information. These deprivations, while grievous, do not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.” Nah, headline is optimistic actually: no right to clean water, to water tests, or to the truth about the tests if they occur. No right to healthcare, schools, or even deliverable mail either. But surely some of these are just the kind of thing you might expect as an absolute minimum everywhere if you have to pay taxes.

Smaug123 10d ago
Sorry, I think your pull quote is actually contradicting your gloss. Again, the pull quote states that it doesn’t infringe any constitutional right, not that it doesn’t infringe any rights granted for any other reason?
- ianjbutler 10d ago
  Cool cool, I can see you've got a sharp eye for detail my friend but let's really get down to it. What exactly is it that you really want to defend here? Why do you want to defend it? And more to the point, do you like drinking clean water? Do you think people should have it or not?
  - Amezarak 10d ago
    Speaking for GP, I want to have both a reasonable legal system and safe, clean drinking water. We can have both, and the former precludes the idea that plaintiffs and judges can simply invent new fundamental rights that require enormous sums of money and labor to implement without any democratically designed framework because they're a good idea. We have a route to do this, it's legislation and regulation. Note that in this particular case, while these things did not work perfectly - the Jackson water system had a lot of well-reported problems, and the lawsuit was filed in response to that - there's been hundreds of millions poured into remediating the problem. It is not simply being "ignored". People are not doing "nothing." The EPA, MSDH, and Jackson authorities have been working on the problem, not ignoring it because it's not a Constitutional right. In late 2025 the work resulted in the Jackson water supply once again meeting Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. Here is the latest comprehensive water quality report, on a reporting website that the DOJ, EPA, and courts forced JXN to create: https://jxnwater.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/JXNWater-2025-Water-Quality-Report.pdf https://jxnwater.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/JXNWater-202...
  - Smaug123 10d ago
    I don’t have skin in this game, being from the increasingly oppressive UK and not the USA, but: > what do you want to defend Accuracy, and in this case people correctly knowing that their rights stem from some source (if they do! I don’t know the legal facts) or knowing the appropriate venue in which to campaign for them, rather than incorrectly believing that they don’t have rights and/or can’t get them. > why do you want to defend it Because words still have meanings, and people pretending they don’t, while screaming in ever more shrill tones at each other, is extremely tiresome, and the Internet is full of it.

Smaug123 10d ago

Sorry, I think your pull quote is actually contradicting your gloss. Again, the pull quote states that it doesn’t infringe any constitutional right, not that it doesn’t infringe any rights granted for any other reason?

ianjbutler 10d ago
Cool cool, I can see you've got a sharp eye for detail my friend but let's really get down to it. What exactly is it that you really want to defend here? Why do you want to defend it? And more to the point, do you like drinking clean water? Do you think people should have it or not?
- Amezarak 10d ago
  Speaking for GP, I want to have both a reasonable legal system and safe, clean drinking water. We can have both, and the former precludes the idea that plaintiffs and judges can simply invent new fundamental rights that require enormous sums of money and labor to implement without any democratically designed framework because they're a good idea. We have a route to do this, it's legislation and regulation. Note that in this particular case, while these things did not work perfectly - the Jackson water system had a lot of well-reported problems, and the lawsuit was filed in response to that - there's been hundreds of millions poured into remediating the problem. It is not simply being "ignored". People are not doing "nothing." The EPA, MSDH, and Jackson authorities have been working on the problem, not ignoring it because it's not a Constitutional right. In late 2025 the work resulted in the Jackson water supply once again meeting Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. Here is the latest comprehensive water quality report, on a reporting website that the DOJ, EPA, and courts forced JXN to create: https://jxnwater.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/JXNWater-2025-Water-Quality-Report.pdf https://jxnwater.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/JXNWater-202...
- Smaug123 10d ago
  I don’t have skin in this game, being from the increasingly oppressive UK and not the USA, but: > what do you want to defend Accuracy, and in this case people correctly knowing that their rights stem from some source (if they do! I don’t know the legal facts) or knowing the appropriate venue in which to campaign for them, rather than incorrectly believing that they don’t have rights and/or can’t get them. > why do you want to defend it Because words still have meanings, and people pretending they don’t, while screaming in ever more shrill tones at each other, is extremely tiresome, and the Internet is full of it.