Can't wait to hear the screams about the ACLU on this one...

[Boris Godunov]

The evil liberal organization is at it again:

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid...=rush_limbaugh

ACLU Backs Rush Limbaugh's Privacy
Mon Jan 12, 1:01 PM ET

By JILL BARTON, Associated Press Writer

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Rush Limbaugh and the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) don't agree about much, but they're in accord that the conservative radio commentator's medical records should be off-limits to prosecutors.

The Florida ACLU filed court papers Monday 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 attorneys have asked an appeals court to keep the records sealed past a Jan. 23 deadline set by the Palm Beach Circuit Court.

Investigators went after the records discovering 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 — a charge that prosecutors deny. His attorney Roy Black says the records would only prove 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.

Those liberal swine!

[KrazyHorse]

What justification was given for seizure of medical records? Is there any precedent for this?

[KrazyHorse]

Also, I can see that incases of fraud etc. there needs to be the ability to look at a patient's medical records, but I'm very hesitant to agree with this...

[monkspider]

Burn down ACLU headquarters!

[Ramo]

Rush Limbaugh must be a terrorist! Why else would the terrorcommie ACLU defend them?

[KrazyHorse]

Remember that buying drugs makes you a terrorist...

[Boris Godunov]

No clue what the justification is, but between Limbaugh and the ACLU, only one of them has had a consistent position on this matter, and it ain't Limbaugh. His concern for privacy seems to only come into play when his ass is on the line:

"I agree with the view, best articulated by Judge Robert Bork, that there is no basis in the Constitution for the privacy right which was announced as the foundational basis for the constitutional right to abortion. " - The Way Things Ought To Be, p. 56 Jul 2, 1992

[Whoha]

they have to defend privacy rights, if he loses, they are gone.

see that in the article "constitutional right to privacy", it doesn't say that anywhere in there, and if the judges decide Rush doesn't have one, then they don't exist. I'm sure you all understand the implications of that.

[Berzerker]

But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights

BS!

[Berzerker]

"I agree with the view, best articulated by Judge Robert Bork, that there is no basis in the Constitution for the privacy right which was announced as the foundational basis for the constitutional right to abortion. " - The Way Things Ought To Be, p. 56 Jul 2, 1992

Abortion involves at least 2 people...the victim and the
aborter(s). Therefore it is no longer a matter of privacy... But that aside, perhaps Bork and Limbaugh can explain the basis for the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and siezures if there is no right to privacy. And when they're done with that, perhaps they can explain why the absence of an enumerated right translates into a government power. The Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers, not a blank check to do anything not explicitly prohibited. Furthermore, the Limbaugh case involves the Florida Constitution which I hear does have a privacy clause.

[Ben Kenobi]

Bork does not support your position, Boris.

Bork does not rule out a right to privacy, but rather, rules out the question that the existing right to privacy encompasses abortion.

Thus Limbaugh is not contradicting himself here.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Thus Limbaugh is not contradicting himself here.

Yes he is, as he was indeed saying there is no constitutional right to privacy, and reiterated this point of you not in reference to abortion:

On his radio program on June 27, 2003, Rush Limbaugh is quoted as saying::

"There is no right to privacy specifically enumerated in the Constitution."

Which is, of course, correct. Thankfully our rights don't derive from the Constitution. But he was using this not for abortion, to support the government being able to tell adults who they can and can't have sex with. So his interest in privacy indeed only extends as far as his own interests.

[KrazyHorse]

Yes he is. Please reread.

He argues against any Constitutional right to privacy.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

best articulated by Judge Robert Bork, that there is no basis in the Constitution for the privacy right

Sounds like he's ruling out a right to privacy. The fact this alleged right was declared as the basis for a right to abortion is another matter... he's denying there's any right of privacy. I wonder what Limbaugh has to say about Bork claiming there is no right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution.

[KrazyHorse]

If Berzerker and I agree on something then it must be right.

That and the world's about to end.

[Ramo]

Abortion involves at least 2 people...the victim and the aborter(s)

The "victim" isn't a person.

[Kuciwalker]

Yup, the way it's worded he says that abortion isn't protected by a right to privacy because there is no right to privacy.

[Boris Godunov]

What an unholy alliance I've promulgated...

[Ben Kenobi]

That does seem to be the case.

If so I echo Berz's question.

It's not necessary to oppose a right to privacy and abortion, so abortion should not be the issue of the thread.

[Boris Godunov]

Well, just because Limbaugh agrees with Bork on one constitutional matter doesn't mean he's required to agree with him on all. Kinda like how one can agree with some of the things Jesus said, but not necessarily agree with everything he said.

[Berzerker]

The "victim" isn't a person.

It's a kitty?

[Boris Godunov]

Are fetuses currently legally recognized as persons?

No. Until they are, there aren't two persons involved, so under your rationale the right to privacy still stands.

But abortion is off topic here.

[Berzerker]

When did you start growing? Using the law to justify an illogical definition is problematic. Some people claimed blacks weren't human either to justify slavery...

[Boris Godunov]

If you want to argue that not defining fetuses as persons is unjust, that's fine (for another thread), but its not the point. The point is that currently, they aren't legally considered such--for good or bad--and thus the right to privacy notion still stands.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, just because Limbaugh agrees with Bork on one constitutional matter doesn't mean he's required to agree with him on all.

I'm still unsure how you arrived at this point from my last post. I am interested in seeing how Bork explains why we should not be unreasonably searched without an explicit right to privacy in the constitution.

Thankfully our rights don't derive from the Constitution.

Missed this. What then do our rights derive from?

[OzzyKP]

The ACLU rocks.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

What would you do without this icon?

I'm still unsure how you arrived at this point from my last post. I am interested in seeing how Bork explains why we should not be unreasonably searched without an explicit right to privacy in the constitution.

Well, you weren't specific, so I assumed you meant the last question Berz posited, which was Limbaugh's stance vis-a-vis Bork's opinion on gun ownership and the constitution.

Missed this. What then do our rights derive from?

Nowhere...they're inalienable. There are countless rights we possess that aren't enumerated in the Constitution--the right to eat, for instance. Its enumeration of some specific rights does not mean they aren't the only ones we possess.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
so abortion should not be the issue of the thread.

Indeed, it is not. The news Item Boris posted doesn't mention abortion at all, but it speaks about how Limbaugh's privacy was broken, as his medical files were checked. The ACLU believes such a breach of privacy is unconstitutional.

[Ben Kenobi]

At least I ask when I don't understand something.

Nowhere...they're inalienable.

I agree that they are inalienable, but that's not the same as saying that they do not come from something. Inalienable merely means that they are not transeferable, and cannot be taken away.

[St Leo]

If you are impartial, you are against us. ACLU is against us.