I feel the need to say, especially in relation to my previous repost of this - the judge's ruling here is correct. Whether it's good or not that clean drinking water isn't a protected right in Mississippi is a completely different issue. But you know what is?

I take issue with how this article is written. There are some simple facts here: lead poisoning, city didn't fix, sued over constitutional infringement, and that didn't work. Why bring up "trump-appointed judge" or the demographics of the population of Jackson?  The judge's job was to consider whether this infringed on constitutionally protected rights, and they did their job. Should the city face charges for gross negligence? Probably! But not for constitutional stuff.

It's really, really easy to begin to spin things as "us versus them!!!!", which is what this article is doing. It's implying that them, being the Trump administration and co, are trying to make lead in the water okay (or something along those lines). That's not what happened. There are layers to this, and things we're not told. WHY did the city remain silent about the lead? Was the judge supposed to consider more than just constitutionality? After all, they're not saying lead in the water is okay, they're just reconfirming that the US constitution does not give you an inherent right to clean water.

(UN human rights don't apply to the USA I guess, because this is a UN human right)

Anywho it's 3 am goodnight