|
|
| Author |
Message |
void
|
|
Rush Limbaugh and the ACLU
| 
Feb 5 21:30 UTC 2006 |
Backing Limbaugh, ACLU goes to court
By Jill Barton, Associated Press, 1/13/2004
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Rush Limbaugh and the American Civil Liberties
Union do not agree about much, but they are in accord that the
conservative radio commentator's medical records should be off-limits to
prosecutors.
The Florida ACLU filed court papers yesterday supporting Limbaugh's
argument that investigators violated his constitutional right to privacy
when they seized his medical records in November to investigate whether
he violated drug laws when he purchased prescription painkillers.
"It may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush
Limbaugh," the state chapter's executive director, Howard Simon, said in
a statement. "But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the
Bill of Rights, and we will continue to safeguard the values of
equality, fairness, and privacy for everyone, regardless of race,
economic status, or political point of view."
State Attorney Barry Krischer had no comment on the ACLU's involvement.
Spokesman Mike Edmondson said prosecutors have followed state laws and
have protected Limbaugh's rights throughout the investigation. Limbaugh
has not been charged with a crime.
Prosecutors say they cannot continue their investigation until they
review Limbaugh's medical records, which have been sealed since Dec. 23.
Limbaugh's lawyers have asked an appeals court to keep the records
sealed past a Jan. 23 deadline set by the circuit court.
Investigators went after the records and said they found that Limbaugh
received more than 2,000 painkillers, prescribed by four doctors in six
months, at a pharmacy near his Palm Beach mansion. Limbaugh's former
maid told investigators she had been supplying him prescription
painkillers for years.
Limbaugh argues that the investigation is politically motivated, an
allegation that prosecutors deny. Roy Black, Limbaugh's lawyer, says the
records would prove only that Limbaugh suffered from a serious medical
condition and was prescribed painkillers.
Limbaugh admitted his addiction in October, saying it stemmed from
severe back pain. He took a five-week leave from his afternoon radio
show to enter a rehabilitation program.
(From
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/13/backing_limbaugh_ac
lu_goes_to_court/ or this TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/3eh7v )
|
| 70 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 1 of 70:
|
Feb 5 21:51 UTC 2006 |
I predict that he will continue to trash the ACLU, with no sense of irony.
|
keesan
|
|
response 2 of 70:
|
Feb 5 22:07 UTC 2006 |
We know someone with severe back pain who illegally used pain killers and was
sent to jail for a year.
|
klg
|
|
response 3 of 70:
|
Feb 5 22:12 UTC 2006 |
Rush probably neither needs nor wants the assistance of the Anti
CiviLization Union. (Note the date. This is old, old, news.)
By the way, in more current news, Federal Special Prosecutor Patrick
Fitzgerald, it has been reported, never looked into the matter as to
whether supposed CIA sleuth Valerie Plame Wilson was actually a covert
agent. Therefore, he did not know whether it would have been a crime if
any person had identifed her or blown her cover. If true, this shows
that his entire investigation was, in fact, a fishing expedition
(politically or personally motivated??) and it is Fitzgerald, himself,
who ought to be investigated for prosecutorial misconduct. Kafkesque,
indeed, don't you think?
|
gull
|
|
response 4 of 70:
|
Feb 5 23:04 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:3 paragraph 1: But he didn't say "no" when they offered, did he?
If he really were taking a principled stand against the ACLU, he would
have declined their assistance. The fact that he didn't means he's just
an opportunist.
Re paragraph 2: Source?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 5 of 70:
|
Feb 6 00:06 UTC 2006 |
re #4: It sounds like they filed an amicus brief. Whether or not he
would have preferred that they did not there's probably nothing he could
have done to stop it.
re #3: Reported by whom? And what kind of an investigation did you
expect to have take place? Isn't that the sort of thing you'd expect
could be taken care of with one phone call to the right person at the CIA?
Personally I'd love it if the administration launched an investigation of
Fitzgerald, alleging prosecutorial misconduct. It sounds like he'd be
pretty hard to pin something on and when election time came along next
year the Democrats could line him up with other criminal justice figures
who had been investigated or punished for scrutinizing Republican figures
too closely, such as the US Attorney in the Marianas Islands who was
removed from his position for investigating political corruption related
to Jack Abramoff.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 6 of 70:
|
Feb 6 03:30 UTC 2006 |
I doubt many of you listen to Rush Limbaugh, so I wouldn't go off
talking about what he will and will not say like you really know a lot
about him. He has both criticised and complimented the ACLU on the
radio. And I can't think of any single instance where I disagreed with him.
Of course, you people seem to think the ACLU can do wrong...funny you
lambaste republicans for the thinking the same about Bush.
|
richard
|
|
response 7 of 70:
|
Feb 6 05:32 UTC 2006 |
Since the ACLU's sole mission is to defend the Bill of Rights, I fail
to see why everyone isnt a "card carrying member" I mean that is
unless you have something AGAINST the Bill of Rights.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 8 of 70:
|
Feb 6 06:47 UTC 2006 |
Re #3: KLG repeats something and then says "If true....blah, blah, blah,
blah, as if it is true.
|
bru
|
|
response 9 of 70:
|
Feb 6 11:53 UTC 2006 |
Teh sole mission of the ACLU os to defend their interpretation of the bill
of rights. Since they are often wrong in that interpretation...
|
klg
|
|
response 10 of 70:
|
Feb 6 11:54 UTC 2006 |
I don't recall the source. I was switching stations at the time.
I just want to know when the ACLU types are going to file a brief in
support of Scooter Libby, objecting to the use of state power to
conduct an investigation and dragging people before the grand jury when
it did not even bother to find out if a crime had been committed.
---------------
RW - Find out what the ostensible "mission" of the ACLU before spouting
your lies. It is easy enough to check their website.
"The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and
guarantees:
"Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and
assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by
the strict separation of church and state.
"Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment
regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
"Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever
the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
"Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion
into your personal and private affairs.
"We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have
traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and
other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered
people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with
disabilities; and the poor."
-------------
At least I listen to the news, even that emanating from "my side" with
some scepticism - which is a lot mor that I can say of you MSM folks.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 11 of 70:
|
Feb 6 12:31 UTC 2006 |
klg may listen with skepticism, but he doesn't listen very well. The
story he refers to is from the new edition of Newsweek:
"Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned
whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had
covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special
prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert
work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years,
and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity,
according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion."
I guess that's *almost* like klg's assertion that "Federal Special
Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, it has been reported, never looked into
the matter as to whether supposed CIA sleuth Valerie Plame Wilson was
actually a covert agent."
|
cyklone
|
|
response 12 of 70:
|
Feb 6 13:32 UTC 2006 |
The truthiness will set you free!
|
nharmon
|
|
response 13 of 70:
|
Feb 6 14:58 UTC 2006 |
Re 7: I do not belong to organizations that piss me off. I think that
pretty much sums up why I join/leave organizations. Besides, I'm already
a member of too many organizations...the NRA, AOPA, EAA, EFF, MCRGC, to
name 5.
One organization I used to be a member of before it began pissing me off
was MCRGO. Thats, Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners. It is a
grass-roots organization supporting responsible, legal gun ownership.
However a few years ago it began aligning itself with some strange
organizations, namely the Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters. The
organization began supporting candidates who did not have strong
histories of fighting for gun-rights over candidates who did. In fact,
MCRGO began endorsing only candidates who were pro-union...and not
necessarily pro-gun-rights. Well, you can imagine how fast I pulled my
money out of that place.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 14 of 70:
|
Feb 6 17:10 UTC 2006 |
(MCRGC? Midwest Chevelle Regional Governing Council?)
|
klg
|
|
response 15 of 70:
|
Feb 6 17:17 UTC 2006 |
Thanks, JJ. I guess we know that Newsweek (unlike CBS News, the New
York Times, the Washington Post, etc, etc, etc) only report 100%
accurately and truthfully.
Or is that just your naive, unskeptical opinion??
|
tod
|
|
response 16 of 70:
|
Feb 6 17:30 UTC 2006 |
re #2
60 Minutes the week before last had a segment on a guy who was sent up the
river for 25 years because he lived in Florida and had prescriptions from his
doctor in New Jersey which weren't dated. Somehow, the law equates that with
major drug trafficking.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 17 of 70:
|
Feb 6 17:39 UTC 2006 |
re #10:
> I just want to know when the ACLU types are going to file a brief in
> support of Scooter Libby, objecting to the use of state power to
> conduct an investigation and dragging people before the grand jury when
> it did not even bother to find out if a crime had been committed.
Probably never. You do understand that that's one of the MAIN FUNCTIONS
of a grand jury, right? To make a factual determination as to whether a
crime has occurred and a specific person should be indicted..
Note: the above question is rhetorical, no substantive reply from klg is
expected. In fact, any such expectation would be foolish given the pattern
we've seen so far, which goes something like:
KLG: I heard somewhere that {factually dubious assertion.}
Grexer: Nonsense. X, Y, and Z contradict your assertion.
KLG: Your sources are biased and I prefer to believe my own,
though I am unable to name them. It's up to you to
disprove me, using only those sources that I deem
acceptable, said determination to be made solely by me
and on a case-by-case basis.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 18 of 70:
|
Feb 6 17:47 UTC 2006 |
Heh, MCRGC - Monroe County Rod and Gun Club.
|
gull
|
|
response 19 of 70:
|
Feb 6 18:17 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:6: I've listened to quite a bit of Rush Limbaugh over the
years, though less in recent years because he's been a lot less funny
since he lost his sense of humor.
I'd be *very* interested to see a quote where he defends the ACLU.
I've never heard him say anything nice about them.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 20 of 70:
|
Feb 6 19:06 UTC 2006 |
nate, you never disagree with druggy limbaugh?
like you don't disagree when he does shit like tell an
african-american to "take the bone out of your nose"?
you agree with stuff like that?
he sure lies alot as well, nate.
www.mediamatters.org
|
nharmon
|
|
response 21 of 70:
|
Feb 7 00:46 UTC 2006 |
Re 19: "In an interview with Time magazine, Rush Limbaugh declares
himself a longtime fan of the ACLU after they filed an amicus brief on
his behalf in his prescription drug case: "In a situation like this, I
think it's safe to say I welcome its support, and I don't find it
hypocritical at all, because I am not anti-ACLU. If the ACLU wants to go
after, say, nativity scenes or this sort of thing, I may take issue, but
there are other areas where I've supported things it has done."
(http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/pundits/rush-limbaugh/)
Re 20: I've never heard him tell an African-American to "take the bone
out of your nose". But anyway, I do not agree with everything Rush says.
I don't agree with everything you say. But for me not to listen to your
opinion just because I might disagree is ignorant.
|