|
|
| 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.
|