OMG, some conservatives are going to have a heart attack!

[Blackadar]

Court denies Limbaugh's appeal
Conservative radio host challenges seizure of medical records

Thursday, April 28, 2005 Posted: 5:15 PM EDT (2115 GMT)

(CNN) -- The Florida Supreme Court has turned down conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh's request to review a lower court decision that the state could seize his medical records.

In a 4-3 decision, the court said it would not consider a motion for rehearing.

Limbaugh has been under investigation into whether he illegally went from doctor to doctor to get multiple painkiller prescriptions.

He has not been charged and denies the allegation, saying investigators are on a fishing expedition aimed at embarrassing him.

In October, Florida's 4th District Court of Appeal ruled that the state did not violate Limbaugh's privacy rights when it seized his medical records with a search warrant.

Limbaugh's lawyer, Roy Black, has argued that using a warrant gave Limbaugh no opportunity to challenge the seizure. On Thursday, Black released a statement that said in part, "I have said from the start that there was no violation of the doctor-shopping statute, but that Rush Limbaugh should not have to give up his right to privacy in order to prove his innocence.

"Mr. Limbaugh appropriately sought treatment for severe back pain and for pain from an operation to restore his hearing. He has not been charged with a crime, and he should not be charged. His medical records will show that he received legitimate medical treatment for legitimate medical reasons."

<b>The American Civil Liberties Union has supported Limbaugh's position</b>, saying the seizure of medical records violated Florida's constitutional right of privacy and doctor-patient confidentiality.

But James Martz, assistant state attorney, argued that giving notice, or using a subpoena, would have compromised the investigation into whether Limbaugh was obtaining prescription medications illegally.

Prosecutors seized Limbaugh's medical records in late November and early December of 2003. Authorities also seized Limbaugh's prescription records from several drugstores Limbaugh went to obtain 2,000 pills over six months, prosecutors said.

Using several doctors to get such prescriptions is a felony in Florida.

Limbaugh's medical records have remained under court seal pending a decision in the case. It was unclear what the next step would be.

The seizure came after Limbaugh's former housekeeper revealed to the National Enquirer in October 2003 that she had sold him prescription painkillers. He then publicly admitted to his addiction to pain medication and left his radio show for five weeks to check into a rehabilitation program.

[Schmidty]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. CONSERVATIVES ARE TeH SuXXOrs!!!!!! LoL!!111111111!!!!!!!111




Edited to add: Limbaugh is FAT!!!!!!!!

[ThunderingHERD]

If only denying his appeal would make it go away.

[Joe]

fuck him

[sabotai]

ACLU...and the republicans....together? My whole world is falling apart!

[Dutch]

Why would anyone vote Republican????

[Radii]

Put me in the camp that actually read the article and chuckled at the the sweet, sweet non partisan irony instead of responding with a smartass response when seeing the name Limbaugh!!!

If you're tired of the political threads don't fucking read them.

[Schmidty]

If you're tired of the political threads don't fucking read them.

Yes master.

By the way, how's you're RWBL team doing?

[Dr. Sak]

Why would anyone vote Republican????

Why would anyone vote Democrat?

[Dutch]

Why would anyone vote Democrat?

Well, there shit doesn't stink for one.

[Schmidty]

Well, there shit doesn't stink for one.

You've obviously never been in my Grandma's bathroom.

[Desnudo]

Why would anyone vote Republican????

All the hippies haven't been rounded up yet.

[Dr. Sak]

Well, there shit doesn't stink for one.

I dont know about you but I dont go around smelling other people's shit. You might want to get that problem checked out.

[timmynausea]

I dont know about you but I dont go around smelling other people's shit. You might want to get that problem checked out.

I won't speculate on the smell, but I bet you Rush takes some massive shits.

[Dr. Sak]

I won't speculate on the smell, but I bet you Rush takes some massive shits.

Easily a two flusher

[MrBigglesworth]

ACLU...and the republicans....together? My whole world is falling apart!
The ACLU is an organization that, while you may not agree with them, stands by their principles no matter who they are defending, whether it be the most fascist conservative or most socialist liberal.

Limbaugh...not so much.

[Blackadar]

The ACLU is an organization that, while you may not agree with them, stands by their principles no matter who they are defending, whether it be the most fascist conservative or most socialist liberal.

Limbaugh...not so much.

Exactly. I find it ironic how many conservatives castigate the ACLU when they're defending the rights of americans and taking a "liberal" stance, when it's clear that the ACLU defends the rights of ALL Americans - liberal and conservative alike. Now here's an article about them defending Rush and there's nary a peep about this "liberal" organization.

[Bee]

Exactly. I find it ironic how many conservatives castigate the ACLU when they're defending the rights of americans and taking a "liberal" stance, when it's clear that the ACLU defends the rights of ALL Americans - liberal and conservative alike. Now here's an article about them defending Rush and there's nary a peep about this "liberal" organization.

It's all a vast right-wing conspiracy

[Warhammer]

Exactly. I find it ironic how many conservatives castigate the ACLU when they're defending the rights of americans and taking a "liberal" stance, when it's clear that the ACLU defends the rights of ALL Americans - liberal and conservative alike. Now here's an article about them defending Rush and there's nary a peep about this "liberal" organization.

This is something I think the ACLU should be doing more of. I just disagree with some of their extreme left-wing stances. On the flip side, I can understand the position of the prosecution in the case, how can they prove something, if they do not have access to the records.

[Radii]

Yes master.

By the way, how's you're RWBL team doing?

The Giants don't perform well with a Republican in office apparently. Just 3 more years then I'll be ready to compete again.

[st.cronin]

The Giants don't perform well with a Republican in office apparently. Just 3 more years then I'll be ready to compete again.

I thought Bill First was also a Republican????

[CamEdwards]

I thought Bill First was also a Republican????

I think we'll see President Condoleeza Rice before we see President Bill Frist.

[st.cronin]

I think we'll see President Condoleeza Rice before we see President Bill Frist.

I agree - he was the first name to come to mind. President Whitman is maybe my best guess.

[CamEdwards]

I agree - he was the first name to come to mind. President Whitman is maybe my best guess.

you trying to make me cry?

[st.cronin]

you trying to make me cry?

hee hee

I don't even know what the real odds for the nominees are. I assume the Democratic nominee will be between Hillary and John Edwards; the Republicans, I can't even imagine. Powell, maybe? Jeb Bush? Whitman seems as good a guess as any to me.

[Warhammer]

hee hee

I don't even know what the real odds for the nominees are. I assume the Democratic nominee will be between Hillary and John Edwards; the Republicans, I can't even imagine. Powell, maybe? Jeb Bush? Whitman seems as good a guess as any to me.

I think the Repubs are screwed in the next election. There isn't anyone that is going to fire us up. Bill Frist? No. Condi Rice? I'd vote for her, but she'd be killed in a national election. Rudy G? Eh. Zell Miller? He'd a Dem, but damn I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

One Dem I could vote for (who could get their nomination) would be Gov. Bredesen of TN, provided he wouldn't change his stripes at the national level.

[TroyF]

Exactly. I find it ironic how many conservatives castigate the ACLU when they're defending the rights of americans and taking a "liberal" stance, when it's clear that the ACLU defends the rights of ALL Americans - liberal and conservative alike. Now here's an article about them defending Rush and there's nary a peep about this "liberal" organization.

As if liberals don't flip/flop on issues when the need arises. It's only Republicans, right? Didn't see a lot of liberals ready to bash Dan Rather or CBS when they aired forged documents. Something tells me if Fox news airs a similar story about Dean with forged documents we'll hear a little something about it from their side.

As for me, I think the ACLU goes too far often. I think they did it in this case and I think they've done it in other cases.

I haven't heard anything from Rush in over a decade. Thank God.

[Blackadar]

As if liberals don't flip/flop on issues when the need arises. It's only Republicans, right? Didn't see a lot of liberals ready to bash Dan Rather or CBS when they aired forged documents. Something tells me if Fox news airs a similar story about Dean with forged documents we'll hear a little something about it from their side.

As for me, I think the ACLU goes too far often. I think they did it in this case and I think they've done it in other cases.

I haven't heard anything from Rush in over a decade. Thank God.

I'm not talking about flip/flopping on "issues". I'm not talking about Dan Rather or CBS. So don't try to confuse the issue. It doesn't work with me. If you want to talk about flip/flopping or Dan Rather, feel free to start another thread that addresses those subjects. Don't try to play the shell game here.

I'm talking specifically about the ACLU often being castigated as a liberal organization by some/many (note: not all) conservatives even though they defend everyone's individual rights - or "rights" as they interpret the Constitution - regardless of political ideology. It's something that I find funny and ironic.

I don't always agree with the ACLU either, but I think they're one of the most necessary and important groups in the US today as they often act as the 1st line of defense against the encroachment of big business or big government (regardless of whether it's a Democrat or Republican majority government).

[HomerJSimpson]

I think the Repubs are screwed in the next election. There isn't anyone that is going to fire us up. Bill Frist? No. Condi Rice? I'd vote for her, but she'd be killed in a national election. Rudy G? Eh. Zell Miller? He'd a Dem, but damn I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

One Dem I could vote for (who could get their nomination) would be Gov. Bredesen of TN, provided he wouldn't change his stripes at the national level.


Frist really does have the best shot. Condi will not make it out of the primaries, and neither will Rudy. Zell would be interesting, but I don't think he wants the position at his age.

[st.cronin]

Will Rudy even run?

[HomerJSimpson]

Will Rudy even run?


I think he is going to take a flier, but may not even make it the primaries. He is one of those canidates that sound good, and many around him are going to encourage it, but hit stark realities when talking to the men in the party that have the real power (ie. money).

[st.cronin]

I think he is going to take a flier, but may not even make it the primaries. He is one of those canidates that sound good, and many around him are going to encourage it, but hit stark realities when talking to the men in the party that have the real power (ie. money).

I thought he was more or less retired when it came to elections...

[HomerJSimpson]

I thought he was more or less retired when it came to elections...


So? Pols retire more often than heavy weight fighters.

[Arles]

Exactly. I find it ironic how many conservatives castigate the ACLU when they're defending the rights of americans and taking a "liberal" stance, when it's clear that the ACLU defends the rights of ALL Americans - liberal and conservative alike. Now here's an article about them defending Rush and there's nary a peep about this "liberal" organization.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day ;)

[Bee]

I'm not talking about flip/flopping on "issues". I'm not talking about Dan Rather or CBS. So don't try to confuse the issue. It doesn't work with me. If you want to talk about flip/flopping or Dan Rather, feel free to start another thread that addresses those subjects. Don't try to play the shell game here.

I'm talking specifically about the ACLU often being castigated as a liberal organization by some/many (note: not all) conservatives even though they defend everyone's individual rights - or "rights" as they interpret the Constitution - regardless of political ideology. It's something that I find funny and ironic.

I don't always agree with the ACLU either, but I think they're one of the most necessary and important groups in the US today as they often act as the 1st line of defense against the encroachment of big business or big government (regardless of whether it's a Democrat or Republican majority government).

hehe Troy just got a beat down. :D

Don't worry, I blame the liberal media for all of it. ;)

[Glengoyne]

I agree that the ACLU represents the rights of all Americans much of the time. I think I could get behind them based solely on that. However, they seem to have decided to make it their role to expand the interpretation and implementation of the Establishment clause. I think they should be more about protecting the rights of individuals, rather than creating new rights.

As for the actual topic at hand. I'd at least like to see Limbaugh dragged into court on this, even if he does end up walking. Maybe especially if he ended up walking.

[TroyF]

hehe Troy just got a beat down. :D

Don't worry, I blame the liberal media for all of it. ;)


No, actually I didn't. He thinks he gave me one and that's what counts though.

I actually AGREED with his premise. I just don't happen to find a whole lot to get upset over this single incident when I see hypocrites on both sides use whatever issue happens to exist that day for their gain. And that type of comparison is valid in this case.

If I started a new thread for everytime a Right or Left winger committed an act of hypocrisy, I'd fill up the board in about 10 minutes and Skydog would ban me for trolling.

[Buccaneer]

against the encroachment of big business or big government (regardless of whether it's a Democrat or Republican majority government).
They obviously have been failing miserably at this.

[Abe Sargent]

My problem with the ACLU is that they are not also firm supporters of the Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms. They are officially neutral on the topic. If you read their position statement, it's a very strict interpretation of the amendment, which shows to me some inconsistency. To interpret other amendments in a very broad sense and to fight to the broadest possible rights while simultaneously reading the one amendment that conservatives support as strictly as possible appears quite political. It appears that they cannot come out with the liberal position on gun control, because then everybody would know they are liberal, but the IG elite and the major contributors are against that right because they are liberal, so they are offically neutral. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

-Anxiety

[ISiddiqui]

Well maybe it is because there are already massive organizations doing 2nd Amendment stuff. What's the point when the NRA may have the same amount of money they have and they deal with one amendment.

Secondly, what is so broad with, for example, in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case to say you either have to charge Hamdi or let him go? That's a very strict interpretation to the amendment, and one that only Justice Scalia agreed with (and he isn't a liberal who wants to broaden Constitutional amendments).

[Glengoyne]

...
Secondly, what is so broad with, for example, in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case to say you either have to charge Hamdi or let him go? That's a very strict interpretation to the amendment, and one that only Justice Scalia agreed with (and he isn't a liberal who wants to broaden Constitutional amendments).
JG should be here dressing up your example with a denim jacket and a straw hat.

[ISiddiqui]

JG?

[timmynausea]

John Galt.
Eventually JG will only mean Jason Gwaltney, though.

[Abe Sargent]

Well maybe it is because there are already massive organizations doing 2nd Amendment stuff. What's the point when the NRA may have the same amount of money they have and they deal with one amendment.

Even if that were the case, why wouldn't you at least take a position, wven if you decided not to actively involve your organization? Why wouldn't you want to help out your fellow rights-fighters, when they needed it? Where is the cross-collaboration on some gun rights issues, where other amendments might also be involved?

-Anxiety

[Glengoyne]

I agree - he was the first name to come to mind. President Whitman is maybe my best guess.
That would be a wonderful thing if you ask me. If a moderate Republican could win the party nomination, the Democrats would just be screwed come election day. Just think what would happen if the Republican nominee actually put California into play. But, the party hardliners, Limbaugh Included(my effort to stay on topichttp://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif) would rather tear down those nominees in the primaries, than cruise to an easy victory.