We know of no provision [...] which specifically provides a citizen the right to have a body of water that ‘flows, exists in its natural form, is free of pollution, and which maintains a healthy ecosystem

Politics
21

Can’t really sue to make law enforcement do stuff. Can’t sue cops for failing to respond.

You can sue people if they’re doing something to you. Polluting public waters is an unjustified exception to this.

22

Makes perfect sense.

Want clean rivers clean air etc.?
Correct Approach: Pass a law. Then another one then another one.

Wrong approach: Pretned an imaginary law has been passed and sue based on the imaginary law.

It works that way with laws about mrurder, laws about taxes, laws about everything.
(This should not need to be explained.)

23

A clean environment is a god-given right. Shouldn’t need a law to spell that out and give standing to litigants. The offending entities have no right or business polluting public waters to begin with.

1 Like
24

Then why bother even having a constitution right?

Let’s just allow courts to make up rights (and take them away) according to the latest whim.

25

I think it is sp obvious people should not be allowed to play music after 10 pm cops should juts a go around fining people who do it even it there is no law allowing cops to do so.

And spandex. Obvously spandex on fat girls is an eyesore (pollution.)
Cops shouls jutgo around and write a ticket of an size they think is right.

Oh an obviously driving 35 on my street is unsafe. Should I sue people driving over 25 mph, which is the only safe speed around here?

26

Did you know that you have rights outside of the enumerated list in the constitution?

27

Point being there is a reason we have a process for maing laws and defining rights.
and a reaosn “I want a judge to make up a new one” is not the process.
(this should have been taught in HS alongside “corporations are bad” and "American is a racist patriarchy.)

28

True story:

For more 100 years the citizens of Pennsylvania (as Penn State University)
owned the and north of campus and used it as a wooded area, a dairy pasture and a golf course.

Local residents eventually built houses north of that area, and every day commuters enjoyed a short scenic drive as they came to work and school each day.

One day Penn State decided to sell some of the land to developers
(believing they have a right to use their land as they wish.)

Local commuters considered that an eysesore (a form of pollution).
.
.
.
Interestingly the matter wne to court and the judge decided "I should follow the law and not just make up new imaginary rights aand laws as I go along."
(The law said the land had not been zoned for residential development so, the commuters won the case.)

29

Assume business is guilty.

1 Like
30

Does water?

31

They still get due process, no matter who sues them.
The entire public can have standing to sue for polluted public water, without violating a single right of the offending entities.

32

Water doesn’t.

33

Did you know that the basis of this case decision, according to the article you referenced, is that a state law takes precedence over a municipal law?

34

This keeps getting pointed out, but the libs keep getting left behind. :thinking:

1 Like
35

of course you do, and to sue for them you have to do two things, Show standing and prove damages.

36

Everyone with rightful access to the polluted environment should have standing to sue over pollution. Laws should not be written to preempt that.

37

no they should not. public assets have government agencies that have standing to sue, joe schmoe has no standing. what you’re advocating is anarchy which would quickly overwhelm the judicial system.

38

Everyone who pays taxes should have standing to sue regarding any program that uses federal or state money.
Oh…no they shouldn’t.

39

Your fears do not justify this absurd situation, where local residents cannot sue over pollution in their local bodies of water.

Find a way accommodate the rights of the people rather than wrongfully preempting them with laws.

40

fears? Thats laughable. State law regulates and state agencies oversee it. It is the agencies who have standing to sue, not every joe schmoe who files paperwork. How many millions of new suits do you suppose the judiciary can handle? 50M? 100M?

Further, the local people have local government representation that can petition the state agencies and sue them to force compliance with state regulations. This whole idea of anyone who feels aggrieved having standing is asinine.

having a perceived grievance is not enough. You must have actual standing (not imaginary) and real damages in order to sue.

1 Like