The argument is the choice of the plaintiff. It’s not the role of the judge to argue the plaintiff’s case and find the most compelling argument.

▲

impossiblefork an hour ago | parent | next [-]

What I'm saying though, is that he has room enough to interpret things so that a dismissal isn't necessary.

It isn't the job of the courts to make minimal rulings and avoiding all substantial questions, but to solve disputes. Here we have a case where the government has harmed people in a way that would be a tort if it had been done by anybody else, and people arguing that the government by doing so breached a right. There is presumably a right which can be interpreted as guaranteeing that people's bodies won't be messed with, or things in the US would be quite strange, so there's room to do something useful here, and the judge's choice is not forced.

▲

petcat an hour ago | parent [-]

The judge can only rule on the arguments and evidence presented in their court.

	▲	ianjbutler 42 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Exactly, unless they ignore that and decide based on precedent. But after we fence them in with arguments, evidence, AND precedence then surely.. oh nope, they could ignore those things and talk about reliance interest! I'm sure someone wrote down exactly how much reliance interest is "sufficient" to justify doing something else though. No? Gosh it sounds like a rigorous process and all but I'm starting to think maybe they just do whatever they want
	▲	impossiblefork 29 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Yes, of course, but he interprets the arguments and evidence presented to them. Here he chooses to interpret what they say as demanding the recognition of a new constitutional right to safe water and to correct information. It is not at all clear that that's a good choice. He could equally well interpret the situation by analogy: the government deliberately tricked people into drinking unsafe water, and people were, depending on whether there is evidence of poisoning from the lead, either provably or not provably harmed. Thus it is open to him to interpret their question as one that is not so focused on novel constitutional rights.
	▲	im3w1l 29 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Does that mean you can build precedents with "matchfixing"? Like pay the plaintiff under the table to throw his case by presenting really bad arguments? And then subsequent cases must reference that result?

▲

tchalla an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This is something that is always fundamentally misunderstood. Of course, judges can extend courtesy but most modern systems are designed on pretty much the accuser arguing their case against the defender with the judge deciding based on law plus arguments presented in court.