RASH RUSH BLAMES WOE ON FOES

New York Post ^ | 12/24/03 | JOHN MAINELLI

[kattracks]

December 24, 2003 -- Rush Limbaugh tore into Florida prosecutors on his radio show yesterday - suggesting they're part of an evil Democratic plot to defeat him "in the court of public opinion." The top-rated conservative talker, furious a judge is letting prosecutors examine his medical records for evidence of "doctor shopping," accused them of smearing his name through unsubstantiated leaks to the media.

[Dr. I. C. Spots]

WoW, there is a lot of hate speech going on about this one sided article that some liberal wrote about Rush.... “Can’t we all just get along?” Where are all the doper Hollywood Stars and professional athletes, and political junkies who have been accused by tabloids? Shouldn’t they be coming to the defense of a fellow addict to support him? Where is all the love? Where is all the forgiveness? Where is all the understanding? Where are all the compassionate liberals??? Can’t the liberals stop all their hate speech for one minute and show poor victim RUSH some sympathy? Of course they can’t because they are showing their “True Colors”. I have some good advice for Rush, just say, “OK, I took the pain killers,...but I never swallowed them. It all depends on the definition of “take””. (I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning). Why don’t everyone chill out, pop a couple aspirin and call me in the morning....Christmas morning that is. Peace, be still! Jesus is the reason for the season.

[Woahhs]

Glad to hear it. Then anything I see as a self-evident right is beyond the reach of investigation or prosecution

I'm not going to write out the syllogistic reasoning for you. You either know it or you don't. Pettifogging isn't going to change it one iota.

[an amused spectator]

I predict that Rush will accept a plea then say later he did so only because his lawyer insisted that this would be the easiest route not because he was guilty of anything.

Kind of like this forum did when faced with crushing legal expenses for fighting a rigged legal system.

JR was conducting the equivalent of an electronic town square, posting articles for discussion in cyberspace. Didn't stop LATWP from securing a favorable judge and leveling dubious "infringement" charges.

[steve50]

Florida constitution can and DOES grant rights over and above Federal ones.

That position has played out in the courts repeatedly, care to show me where the state won?

[Woahhs]

#3) Ditto extortion. They've granted immunity to blackmailers in order to convict the victim of the blackmail. Unheard of.

Bravo! Well said, sir.

[Bluntpoint]

Never forget:

THERE IS NO JUSTICE... THERE IS ONLY JUST US!

[Woahhs]

These are Florida "judicial" actions, and if you think federal law doesn't set precedent for state law you're living in a dream world.

What part of "Federalism" do you not understand?

[steve50]

I'm not going to write out the syllogistic reasoning for you. You either know it or you don't. Pettifogging isn't going to change it one iota.

I didn't ask for your "reasoning", I asked for article and section backing up your claim. I guess you have none so you resort to "reasoning", which you would of course refute if it was applied to any other than Rush.

Bye, I have no desire to "reason" with you anymore.

[Woahhs]

I'll take the Hansel with a side of Gretel please ;o)

[Bluntpoint]

Hansel and Gretel: When witches do Atkins!

[fml]

LOL..Merry Christmas to you!

[Woahhs]

That position has played out in the courts repeatedly, care to show me where the state won?

You're big on documentation; show me where the State lost in upholding it's Constitutional provisions in a State prosecution, in a State Court.

[Bonaparte]

Those are not examples of "goverment" imposed rights but professional rights.

You don't know what you are talking about.

[HiTech RedNeck]

care to show me where the state won?

You have twisted my position beyond recognition proving your mendacity in the present case beyond a doubt. I am saying that the CITIZEN can win rights under the state constitution (with respect to STATE actions) that the FEDGUV would not of itself grant with respect FEDERAL actions. Which is PRECISELY Rush's situation. The burden is on YOU to prove the OPPOSITE.

[Woahhs]

I didn't ask for your "reasoning", I asked for article and section backing up your claim. I guess you have none so you resort to "reasoning", which you would of course refute if it was applied to any other than Rush. Bye, I have no desire to "reason" with you anymore.

When someone asks for documentation that 2+2=4, all semblance of "discussion" is over anyway. Your inability to admit fallacious argumentation has nothing to do with my ability to reason, or to whom I apply it. Your understanding of "privacy" would be the equivalent of "free speech" as long as no one gets upset.

[HiTech RedNeck]

To stuffed-50:

[Bluntpoint]

True, medical records are now given more legal protection from intrusion. Unless there is an overriding need to know. Which, under the war on drugs, can be very broad.

In the other cases, any discipline proscribed comes from the "professional" associations the practitioners are aligned with.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Bye

Don't let the door hit you in the hind end as you leave.

[Bonaparte]

There are exceptions to the various statutes governing doctor-patient confidentiality. These exceptions have been in play for more than a "couple years." In the case you describe, it sounds like the doctors themselves were involved in illegal activity which triggered the "raid." My point is that there is a basic legal right to confidentiality of medical records. Doctors have been successfully sued because of this and have had to pay out bigtime for breach of contract, damages, etc. They have also been disciplined by their profession of such breaches.

It's really only common sense that there would be such statutes. If you couldn't rely on the confidentiality of sensitive communications with you doctor, lawyer or priest, you would be reluctant to divulge that information to them at all. This would obviously make it difficult for your doctor or lawyer to help you. And that would make it difficult for your doctor or lawyer to making a living.