They don’t have to. It is a definitional thing. Diet that does not meet the standards necessary for health is a diet which malnourishes people. Every person living on that diet was malnourished. I’m not sure if you are having more trouble understanding what malnutrition is, or understanding what a court ruling does.
Ahhhh - now it is an arbitrary standard. Well, first, it actually doesn’t matter if most people get it or not, though I am sure you have pulled that little figure out of your ass. When we put people in prison, especially people not convicted of a crime, we accept responsibility for their wellbeing. And that involves ensuring they have adequate nutrition. There has to be some kind of standard set for that, and call me old fashioned, but I think the Department of Agriculture is probably better qualified to set a standard than you are. Or than Joe Arapaio is, especially when he is so distracted by your head up his rectum.
I love the ignorance involved in your reply - because people weren’t dropping like flies they weren’t malnourished. That’s not what malnutrition requires, you dipshit.
Did you look up “case and controversy”? It’s a pretty fundamental principle of American jurisprudence.
There is no real point in talking at you about this anymore. You are entirely oblivious to the argument I’m making. You’d make a lousy scientist by just accepting that what is said to be occurring is in fact actually occurring without any evidence to support it.
“Well they must be malnourished because they didn’t get their recommended 5-7 servings of fruit a day”. Without asking what happens when someone doesn’t get that and is there evidence that those things are happening in the population in question rather than assuming they must be.
As opposed to the counter-argument: they must all be adequately nourished because none of them have died yet … except for that one guy with diabetes, but that’s a pre-existing condition so it doesn’t count.
But I make a (damn) good lawyer by accepting finding of facts of the court as facts.
Which of the following do you think you understand? Please post a definition if you do:
Findings of fact
Case or Controversy
Malnutrition
I am not oblivious to the argument you were making, but the bottom line is you think a federal court uses the word “inedible” in the way you do when you talk of Mac and Cheese. That is so staggeringly stupid it defies belief.
I guess the choice is between dead and uber-healthy. No possibility of anything in between, huh? I guess people never show any outward signs until they drop dead. I guess they never have symptoms of scurvy without any indications other than if they get a cut and don’t heal properly or as quickly as normal. I guess there is no blood test that could possibly be done to prove things one way or the other. Okay, I’ll just rely on your word that things are the way they are just because you say they are.:rolleyes:
I’ll add something to my list of things I really don’t think you understand, but you should post a definition if you do:
Burden of proof.
Here’s what happens. Court has trial. Trial has witnesses, including experts. Expert for plaintiff makes argument - “falling below this level of nutrition does not allow a person to maintain health.” Court finds argument credible. Defendant says “uh uh - you can be below that level and still be healthy.” Court says “prove it, Bucko.”
The court has held that (a) there is a minimum standard to maintain health and (b) that minimum standard was not met. It is therefore encumbent on the state of Arizona to show that this is wrong. Either that (a) the minimum standard is too high and health can be maintained at a lower level; or (b) the standard was met.
The case went to appeal. THEY FAILED TO DO EITHER OF THESE THINGS.
So maybe, just maybe, you can shut your fucking bleating, and provide evidence that a diet which acourt determined was insufficient to maintain health actually did maintain health? Don’t you think Arizona and your buddy Joe Apapaio would have done that if they could?