Judge Tosses Wikimedia's Anti-NSA Lawsuit Because Wikipedia Isn't Big Enough (arstechnica.com) 213
An anonymous reader writes: A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Wikimedia Foundation, Amnesty International, and others against the NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies for their surveillance of internet communications. The judge used some odd reasoning in his ruling to absolve the NSA of any constitutional violations. He said that since the plaintiffs couldn't prove that all upstream internet communications were monitored, they didn't have standing to challenge whatever communications were monitored. This is curious, given that tech companies are known to be under gag orders preventing them from discussing certain types of government data collection. The judge also made a strange argument about Wikipedia's size: "For one thing, plaintiffs insist that Wikipedia's over one trillion annual Internet communications is significant in volume. But plaintiffs provide no context for assessing the significance of this figure. One trillion is plainly a large number, but size is always relative. For example, one trillion dollars are of enormous value, whereas one trillion grains of sand are but a small patch of beach."
The courts are rigged (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, forget the courts. They're completely in the pockets of the politicians and Big Money. Lois Lerner just got off Scot free, and I'm willing to bet money that Clinton will as well. If you want justice in this day and age and you aren't a 1%'er, you'd better dish it out yourself or organize with others, because that's the only way it's going to happen.
In the meantime, encrypt everything you possibly can. Destroy any data you no longer need. Don't keep logs on anything any longer than YOU need to. Ma
Re: The courts are rigged (Score:5, Insightful)
Why didnt slashdot post the judges name?
They should help publicize the name of this traitor.
Re: The courts are rigged (Score:5, Informative)
US District Judge Richard D Bennet
It is the second link of the article.
He is both a sellout and a traitor with this ruling.
I really hope that later we hear some really dirty shit about him that costs them man everything released from the same channels he just sold us all out to defend.
Also hope the absurdity of his judgment can be overturned.
Re: (Score:2)
...for varying definitions of a "real" job.
I was always under the impression that a real job requires some honest work to be done.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. If you're going to go that route, slightly alter any data you don't need any more, and THEN encrypt it. When you do the alteration, keep in mind that you don't want it to make you look bad. You should also occasionally encrypt /dev/random for a minute or so. (Don't encrypt /dev/urandom, because you don't want to use up your entropy.)
Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
As a federal judge, you're not going to ever get in trouble for protecting the NSA regardless of the gaping holes in your ruling.
Re:Meh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Lawsuit may have merits, but that doesn't may the lawyers will have anything to present. Regardless of what law is broken, there needs to be presented some kind of evidence. Otherwise you could open lawsuits to start investigations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I suspect the Appellate Court will say, "Pound sand."
It will probably be couched as something like, "The plaintiffs in this case have failed to demonstrate standing." The case will be dismissed with prejudice. A booming voice for the heavens will play, and it will be licensed from Microsoft - "tada.wav."
Re: (Score:3)
If the lawsuit was badly written, this ruling makes a lot more sense and becomes rather inevitable. If you were filing on behalf of everybody then the judge is perfectly correct--and this is a mistake on the part of the lawyers filing suit. If you are filing only on behalf of the people whom you yourselves represent--which I suspect can be done with an opening for people to join in--then the judge's reasoning for dismissing the lawsuit is flawed and probably can be appealed.
In each direction there's an im
Re: (Score:2)
It is highly unlikely that an ACLU lawsuit is "badly written." They employ top-shelf lawyers, and pick out a small number of cases to bring. They have a good track record, too. Expect appeals.
Re: (Score:3)
The judge is requiring a ridiculous level of proof before allowing the lawsuit to go forward. It's like the concept of discovery didn't exist and a plaintiff would have to have all the necessary evidence before initiating a lawsuit.
Imagine if every single individual sued the government over spying. According to this judge, every lawsuit would be thrown out because there was insufficient proof that each individual was being spied upon.
Re: (Score:3)
That catch 22 is deliberate on the part of the government.
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder what they have on him? Probably looked at something scandalous or illegal online once, or maybe a member of his family did. Or perhaps they know he visited somewhere a federal judge shouldn't visit thanks to phone metadata.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is for whatever reason, the judge did not want to rule against the NSA. So just used whatever barely coherent reason seemed remotely plausible.
As a federal judge, you're not going to ever get in trouble for protecting the NSA regardless of the gaping holes in your ruling.
Start a doxing campaign against this judge and others who rule completely contrary to the Constitution. Dig up everything possible and make it public.
Make sure there's a high price to pay to be a lapdog for TPTB.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Harassing a federal judge. Yeah, no way that'd go badly.
It's *ALREADY* "going badly" for citizens of the US!
Posting information that's part of the public record and openly available to anyone is not illegal.
Newsflash! If the US government keeps on this same trajectory the entire world will suffer, not just those in the US. The US has all the makings to be the most horrific and deadly tyranny the Earth has ever known.
It's gotten to the point where the only way left for the government to "take it to the next level" is to just declare martial law and start filling
$1,000,000,000,000 is of enormous value... (Score:5, Funny)
...whereas the amount it takes to buy a judge is much smaller.
The judicial wisdom on this bench ... (Score:2)
... is only rivaled by the sophisticated thinking that goes on in the 114th United States Congress.
Wookie Judgements (Score:1)
Lets see your argument .. look, a wookie! You failed to make your case. Next!
So you're saying... (Score:2)
Wikipedia didn't meet the notability requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
Yip. Someone's run off with the content. Probably Willie on Wheels. (I miss his antics. Wikipedia used to be fun before they figured out security. Now it's just a bunch of mundanes with a chip on their shoulder.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If what you say is true, and it may be, then not only is it no surprise that the law is held in increasing lack of respect, but it deserves to be held in even less respect.
I deny that he had solid legal grounds. Claiming that Wikipedia even alone, much less in combination with the other parties, was not sufficiently significant in size is sufficient to justify nearly total lack of respect.
Additionally, claiming that when you can't provide evidence for something that the government explicitly hides from you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, you are incorrect. A federal judge's responsibility is to rule in favor of established law and precedent.
Wrong. A judge's duty is to evaluate both the letter and spirit of the law with regards to a case presented by the involved parties and their counsel in order to render a judgement. Precedent is not law. "Case law" is not law. Law is law, with the United States Constitution being the highest law in the land.
What?! (Score:2)
They made a point. It's a valid one. Wikipedia is global and this response represents a large amount of people. Respond appropriately.
Here's your bloody context (Score:3)
One trillion connections per year is roughly the size of the traffic the Wikipedia gets. Wikipedia is one of the top ten sites [wikipedia.org] on the internet.
Next up: Judge Bennet tosses out a case because plaintif neglected to provide context for the sky being blue or water being wet. I don't know what bugs me more, this obvious attempt to subvert justice or the lame-ass excuse used for doing so. It is insulting. It's like the judge is telling us the fix is so far in that he doesn't even have to bother to appear to make sense.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- forever.
Re: (Score:2)
One trillion connections per year is roughly the size of the traffic the Wikipedia gets.
So one trillion is a big number yes. If there are ten trillion connections that make 10%. If there are 100 trillion that make 1 percent. If there are 1 quadrillion that make 0.1%. Do you see how putting the raw number as a percentage of the whole changes the significance of the raw number?
Wikipedia is one of the top ten sites
So what? That doesn't mean there are not millions of other sites that collectively get much more traffic than Wikimedia. What if Wikimedia traffic is actually less than 1% of internet traffic? We don't know.
What the judge
Re: (Score:2)
So one trillion is a big number yes. If there are ten trillion connections that make 10%. If there are 100 trillion that make 1 percent. If there are 1 quadrillion that make 0.1%. Do you see how putting the raw number as a percentage of the whole changes the significance of the raw number?
No, I really don't. When it comes to rights, like the rights to be secure in one's person and communications, one is a significant number.
Future Shock (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The wheel is coming, and with it, changing of the world in ways we have no idea of. Stressing cavemen and no one is able to do anything about it.
And humans are cross-breeding plants to create suppressants - some think that these plants may take over the world, or poison us.
Ugh, I forgot that I lasted about two chapters into that book back in the day before declaring it lawn protection fodder.
Disgusting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Judge should really check things... (Score:2)
...before making analogies. A trillion grains of sand is about 150 regular dump trucks' worth.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which can still be a tiny amount on a decent sized beach beach.
Assume each truck is 10m x 10m x 10m, that's 1000m^3 per truck or 150000m^3 total.
Now you're looking at probably 50m+ of sand from the grass/concrete/stones to the furthest most people will be swimming (I've seen some much further when the tide is out).
The sand can easily be 1m+ deep.
So that'd only require a 3km long beach to use up the 150 dump trucks. And that's assuming huge trucks, I'd guess 5x5x5 would be closer, meaning a 375m long beach.
On his lawn (Score:2)
No, we should just have a trillion grains delivered to his house.
Dismissed Due to Standing, Again (Score:2)
Proving standing when one is subject to a secret procedure is akin to proving one's innocence: it may be impossible unless the guilty party steps forward and admits guilt. What the judges SHOULD do is modify the rules on determining standing, so that if it regards a secret procedure, the judge does his own discovery, and examines the classified information on his own, in order to determine if the plaintiff has standing. Judges already privately examine classified information in other contexts, so it shouldn
One trillion (Score:2)
A grain of sand might be 1 mm^3, so 10^12 is 1000 m^3, or maybe 3 x 10^6 kg or 3000 tons worth. I would like to see that idiot judge move that amount, say from one end of his courtroom to another. Ideally, he would do that every working day for the rest of his time on the bench; that might teach him the value of a trillion grains of sand.
Incidentally, 10^12 grains of sand would cover a 10 m x 1 km beach 10 cm deep - sounds like a pretty nice beach to me,
Application of de minimis principal? (Score:2)
This sounds like an application of a de minimis principal -- arguing that the scale of Wikimedia's traffic isn't large enough to give it standing.
I seem to remember learning this phrase in college in a political science class about some guy who sued the government to get some kind of information on defense appropriations, but was rejected because his individual contribution was so small that it essentially didn't matter.
Sand eh? (Score:2)
Someone should ask the judge if he'd be happy to have a trillion grains of sand dropped on him.
Assuming spherical sand grains 1mm across with a density of 2,2g/cm^2, I make that over 1,100 tonnes of sand.
Guilty until innocent (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"one trillion grains of sand are but a small patch of beach."
The largest dump truck in the world would have to carry more than nine full loads to move a trillion grains of sand. A regular dump truck will have to make 150 trips. (first hit on Google "how much is one trillion grains of sand."
In money terms it's about $9 million, that's what NJ spent to replace the sand along one stretch of beach. 150 dump truck loads is a lot.
Now 1 trillion angels, that's really really tiny.....
Re: (Score:3)
In money terms it's about $9 million, that's what NJ spent to replace the sand along one stretch of beach. 150 dump truck loads is a lot.
If each grain of sand is 1 mm^3, then a trillion grains is 1000 m^3. So NJ paid $9000 per cubic meter. When I built my son's sandbox, I paid $50 for a cubic yard (slightly less than a cubic meter). Somewhere in NJ, there is a very rich dump truck driver. Probably Chris Christie's brother-in-law.
Re: (Score:3)
Beach sand isn't play sand. Play sand is from a river, and is collected as a byproduct of the more valuable gravel and rock. That is why it is cheap. If they were going out and collecting just straight play sand out of a river valley, above the amount already available, it would be much, much more expensive.
Beach sand has to be dredged off the ocean floor. And collected carefully, after environmental impact and other site analysis is done by professionals. And often the equipment isn't sitting around on sta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quite the opposite. The rights of EVERY SINGLE ONE of those 330 millions matter.
Rights either matter universally and for everyone or they're not rights but privileges, to be taken away at the whim of whoever is in power at any moment without notice. They are rights exactly because this cannot happen. If it can, don't bother talking about having a right anymore because you don't.
Re: (Score:3)
Especially fun is that you usually don't get to disagree with the judges findings.
That is he can make a claim - and as long as it is arguably reasonably supported by the facts, and not so unreasonable that 'no reasonable person' would make the same decision (very, very far from 'was the decision reasonable), you can't challenge that at any appelate level.
Re:Lawyers failed at presentation (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Sounds like this judge had his/her verdict in mind before anyone stepped into the courtroom.
Re:Lawyers failed at presentation (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, his verdict was probably given to him by the NSA shortly after realizing exactly how much internet monitoring they do.
Re:Lawyers failed at presentation (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, his verdict was probably given to him by the NSA shortly after realizing exactly how much internet monitoring they do.
This, or perhaps the judge in question was just too much of a coward to rule against a government organization that could destroy his entire life.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems a bit of a contradiction to call someone a coward for not wanting their life ruined.
Re: (Score:3)
Not a single person in this thread knows what he's talking about. Welcome to the new Slashdot, gents... you'll fit right in.
No one has written enough yet for us to discern. Only basic reactions are posted.
The one post we can state was written by someone insufficiently informed is yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Really? Sounds like this judge had his/her verdict in mind before anyone stepped into the courtroom.
. . . so the judge gets delivered a National Security Letter. The first thing, that is very clearly stated in the letter, is that he is not allowed to talk about the National Security Letter. Then the letter instructs him how to rule on the case.
All, legal, no problem . . .
. . . or . . . ?
What if you received a National Security Letter instructing you to kill somebody . . . what would you do . . . ?
Does the US government issue issue letters like this? Who knows? There is no oversight from anyone on
Re:Lawyers failed at presentation (Score:5, Funny)
What do you mean? The FBI and DHS should have copies of most of them. And Congress is ever so diligent in making sure they are following the law, because it's their job and they take it very seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
And Congress is ever so diligent in making sure they are following the law, because it's their job and they take it very seriously.
60 killed in embassies under Bush, not a single investigation. 4 dead under Obama's administration, and one of the longest and most expensive investigations in Congressional history. They are too busy crucifying Clinton (either one will do) to do anything useful. And yes, I know you were being iconic/sarcastic.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd publish the letter. Duh.
Re: (Score:3)
You really have no choice but to publish it. If you really do believe in and support freedom of democracy, then that demand that onus is placed upon you to expose that letter. That letter demands you carry out the active actions of that demand else face punishment ie an order from a master to a slave and as such as a citizen of a supposedly (apparently) free and democratic country, you are required under all the principle of freedom and democracy to publicly challenge it, you are not a slave, your fellow c
Re:Lawyers failed at presentation (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even the point. But getting an order to KILL SOMEONE, while not being in any shape or condition, not having any training or other qualification to execute such an order, can only mean one of two things: Either I am supposed to get killed in the process or they need a patsy.
My chances for survival are actually higher when I publish the letter.
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing what lengths some people would go to just to get some toilet cleaner [sanoshop.lv]...
Re:Lawyers failed at presentation (Score:4, Informative)
A NSL is a type of subpoena, a request for basic account info and activity logs. A NSL can't ask you to provide the content of someone's data, kill someone, or smear Crisco all over your body and dance around praising Lord Xenu. (Though if it did, you'd probably be grateful for the non-disclosure clause.)
reference [cornell.edu]
example [wikimedia.org]
The original purpose of non-disclosure was to avoid tipping off suspects that their communications could be monitored, but now that the proverbial cat is out of the bag and any target who worries about NSLs has surely switched to more secure communications, the secrecy around NSLs does a lot more harm than good. Of course, any change to or publicity about NSLs would rekindle debate on the legality of the program (or lack thereof), and they wouldn't want that to happen... Thankfully, people like Nicholas Merrill are forcing the issue, and hopefully there will be change...eventually.
Hint: hyperbole doesn't help, it just distracts people from the real issue. NSLs are bad because they force people to reveal personal information without due process of law. That is all.
False, they demanded Lavabits Crypto keys (Score:5, Informative)
> "A NSL can't ask you to provide the content of someone's data"
That's false, they've done two expansive things:
In some cases. they've asked for a box on the network. In essence they've replaced "give us transactional records" for "trust us to only look at what we're legally allowed to look at for the subject we're legally allowed to search". I recall these boxes were run by the NSA who was keeping all the data, filtering it for the FBI, then handing the legal bit back to the FBI.
And with Lavabit they demanded the crypto keys which would have also permitted content analysis on a "trust us" basis:
http://www.wired.com/2013/10/lavabit_unsealed?ref=cm
The law sets limits, and they conspire to hide the data collecting mechanism in the NSA (out of reach of the courts due to national security), while keeping the legally limited portion within the FBI.
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about a FISA court order, not a NSL. To request data like that they do need a court-issued warrant, the problem is the court is the FISC which operates in secret and with questionable oversight.
Re: Lawyers failed at presentation (Score:3)
If I were a judge with a gun to my head like that I'd issue a batshit-crazy ruling, like talking about the mystery of numbers and grains of sand on a beach, to at least signal something is very wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
You obviously don't read many legal rulings if you think this is outside the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
What you did there, I see it.
And I am greatly amused. You have shares in an aluminum mine, perhaps?
Re: (Score:3)
I would tell everyone. Because any order from any government that forces me to a) cover up something illegal b) aid them with something illegal or c) do something illegal is null and void. Nations do not have the authority to grant themselves power to ignore or break laws, nor can they make secret laws giving themselves power. Not if they also claim to be lawful nations.
Of course they could throw me in jail or worse. It's up to each and every one of us to resist tyranny. When we don't then tyranny is what
Re:Lawyers failed at presentation (Score:5, Interesting)
You say that, but would you really? I mean, I say I'd take a bullet for a nun but I've yet to face that so I can only hope I'd not chicken out and piss myself if it happens. In fact, I was in a single firefight while enlisted and I was scared shitless (suppressive fire only). I was all gung-ho about it before hand. When the situation happened, I'd have run the fuck away had it not been for the fact that the job needed doing and my brethren's lives were at stake. (If you think the enlisted fight for you, you are mistaken. But, I digress.)
So, would you? I know you think you would. I know you can claim you would. I know I say the same. But, would I? I'd like to think I would. Hell, I've got a few bucks - I can fight the case. But, would I? I dunno, really. I'd like to think so, but maybe not. I've also got a lot to lose and, to be honest, I don't really like you that much. (Not you personally, but you get the idea.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which one of us is going to dress up in a suit, fake a letter, and deliver it to the other one while pretending to be the NSA?
Re: (Score:2)
Some of us are human enough to be willing to protect those who are unable to protect themselves. Some of us accept that we're a part of society and didn't make it on our own. Some of us are willing to accept risks on behalf of those who can not or will not. It's called, "doing the ethical thing." You may have fewer ethics and, well, that's okay. Someday, when you're in the ditch and I offer you a hand up - maybe you'll understand the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they never write such letters duh. It would be like incriminating themselves. Everything is done verbally and sometimes the person who receives the message doesn't even know the identity of the person who delivers it.
Now, try to prove you received the message; "Some guy told me that...". Worse case, when you know the identity of the person, it is his words against yours, there again, not much chances.
Re: (Score:2)
""Some guy told me that...". Worse case, when you know the identity of the person, it is his words against yours, there again, not much chances."
Not 'some guy'! You have to say: Some bearded guy in the sky...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't enforce it directly. They will get you for something else or frame you for something else or use connections to ruin your career.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if you received a National Security Letter instructing you to kill somebody . . . what would you do . . . ?
It'd be fake because they wouldn't put something like that in writing.
Re: (Score:2)
What if you received a National Security Letter instructing you to kill somebody . . . what would you do . . . ?
Frankly? I'd take the shortest possible route to the closest foreign embassy of either Russia, or China, or some other large country that is not an ally of the United States, and present them with it, because at that moment in time it would become obvious that even the illusion of the U.S. Constitution meaning a goddamned thing would be gone, so there would be no reason to defend it anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lawyers failed at presentation (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think the NSA can just hand a judge a NSL. I suspect they went with the monkey wrench approach or the black mail approach.
Re: (Score:2)
First, a NSL can't demand that. Secondly, it couldn't demand it of a judge.
NSL's are basically for demanding evidence in your possession, or you could have provide access to, and not disclosing it. They aren't just a blank letter they can write anything they want in it.
Re: (Score:2)
. . . so the judge gets delivered a National Security Letter. The first thing, that is very clearly stated in the letter, is that he is not allowed to talk about the National Security Letter.
The first rule of National Security Letter club is...
Re: (Score:2)
Don't kill them. National Security Letter? What National Security Letter?
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Sounds like this judge had his/her verdict in mind before anyone stepped into the courtroom.
TO have the verdict in mind , that moron judge has to have a brain in his head. .. patch of beach sand !!
One trillion dollars
_______________________________
Resistance is futile
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Sounds like this judge had his/her verdict in mind before anyone stepped into the courtroom.
Another notch in the anti-democracy belt.
Re: (Score:3)
Judge fails at understanding technology, rather.
And this won't change any time soon, at least until we get judges that actually have a faint idea of what this "inter...thing" is. And given that those geezers tend to cling to their seats until they fall off them rotting, I guess I won't live to see that happening.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But that is sort of the point. The prosecution failed to provide enough evidence of their case before the judge. That's their job, and they didn't provide enough facts for him to make a (correct) ruling. Not the judge's fault that they failed to provide a reference of how much their traffic is.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
,
It's really weird, the US court system. You can be hit for 1000s of instances of copyright violation for a single bit torrent file but trillions of individual transactions don't count as "large"
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's abject stupidity on the part of the judge. Judges are supposed to be smart.
How many requests: 1e12
How many humans in the world: 1e10
That's an average of 100 per person. We can fuzz the figures by a few orders of magnitude by making assumptions about what proportion of people visit wikipedia.
The "grains of sand" argument only makes sense if there are even vaguely the same order of magnitude of humans as grains of sand. The judge was therefore being intentionally obtuse which is not the role of judge
Re: (Score:2)
Humans aren't likely making the most requests, but the prosecutors should have made an attempt to show the magnitude.
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't even the reason why it was thrown out. Even if it was, the very nature of the subject means that the prosecution cannot present the evidence. That's the point of the whole lawsuit, that the secrecy around that shit. If that had been the reason you can as well toss the justice system as a defense against unlawful government snooping because the whole point is that they do it in secrecy without any warrant or oversight.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
...
You know, I do like you - I even think you're right with the hosts file use (you should compile a version for Linux, it needn't be GPLed or anything and you can keep the source - just release binaries). But, you know...
I really don't want you editing Wikipedia if your edits are anything like your Slashdot posts and your style confrontational. I'd smack your hand and tell you 'no' too. Bad APK - stay away from Wikipedia! Not yours!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes I did ask for it. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey - look: I can put you away (& I like you too) easily with 100's of upmods of my posts that say otherwise vs. purely arbitrary bullshit, EASILY - want proof of them? Just ask - THAT is EXACTLY how I put away fools giving me guff, with concrete, undeniable & verifiable fact - every time... apk
There's an example of what I mean. I'd call that confrontational. You can call it what you want. It won't fly on Wikipedia, they'll get grouchy. Also, Wikipedia doesn't do "PS" and the likes. However, I'm pretty sure you know that was mild banter for humor sake. As for moderation? I don't even use my mod points. Who am I to judge?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there are a LOT of chess players around the world, so winning a chess championship isn't notable?
Was Obamacare a problem when it was a GOP idea? (Score:2, Insightful)
A market-based "solution" to health care has been a GOP idea since Republicans first proposed it in '92, as an alternative to the Clinton plan. This results in awkward questions for partisan tribalists on both sides of the aisle:
Re: (Score:2)
The gatekeepers never let any good people into power.
it's that way on purpose.