Posted on 04/28/2005 8:01:01 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- The Florida Supreme Court says it won't consider an appeal from conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh. Today's four-to-three order didn't explain the court's reasoning.
Limbaugh's attorney argues that an appeals court misconstrued Florida law when it ruled prosecutors could review the records.
Prosecutors seized Limbaugh's medical records in 2003 for an investigation into whether he illegally purchased prescription painkillers.
Limbaugh hasn't been charged with any crime. He lost at the appellate court level and wanted the Florida Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that would open his medical records and possibly allow prosecutors to build a case against him.
Limbaugh has maintained his innocence throughout the investigation and argues that the case threatens the privacy rights of all Floridians.
"i'll bet that no one will be able to gain access to terry schaivo's records, though"
Was a search warrant issued for her records ?
"Then he should sue them.
Why hasn't he?"
Because they have immunity from prosecution in this case.
Some records were already released in Schiavo. Remember the Family Services investigation of the alledged abuse that was released a week or two ago.
It is what you see floating on top.
"Good, when do we start subpoenaing the records of abortion clinics? "
Unless your long term memory is failing, you know very well this was a search warrant, not a subpoena.
You're right. They're looking to see if there was a medical justification for him using massive quantities of narcotics.
His behavior is suspicious, since at the time he claimed he was having crippling back and neck pain, he was also bragging on-air about playing 18 to 36 holes of golf a couple of times a week. That's a pretty tough thing to do with that kind of pain.
Better duck, freedom advocates are fired upon here pretty regularly. LOL
either way the abortion clinic records are now fair game.
pro-life forces can begin the fishing expeditions to find unreported abortions of the 16 and under.
Activists and volunteers are a fickle group of people. They can't be managed like employees in a business.
Employers can say to their teams: "This is our number one priority; We'll focus all our energy on this project." Because employees are paid, and want to keep their jobs, they focus on the project selected by management.
Activists and volunteers are not so easily convinced. They are not "managable", if you will.
This doesn't mean FReepers are an unruly mob, but it does mean that people with a cause have to persuade others gently, first to share their point of view, and then to publically speak out.
So in Activist World there is no such thing as "priorities". There are common causes, shared resources, and collaborations, but there is really no way to demand that everyone support one cause or another. Actually, it's the variety of passions that is the driving force behind people supporting any causes at all.
This has nothing to do specifically with his consuming drugs, it has to do with the illegal manner in which he obtained them. I didn't know the pro-drug warriors have a wing that advocates for those that apparently lie to or conspire with their doctors.
They have immunity from a libel charge?
Not likely.
Either way? The search warrant versus subpoena was the heart of Rush's case.
That's why OJ Simpson and BJ Clinton walk free, and they will try like hell to lock up Rush.
You think he'll come out and support free access to Oxycontin?
It's a short distance from the Rush-hating prosecutor's office to the front pages of Rush-hating newspapers.
"Because they have immunity from prosecution in this case."
Nope - they have NO connection to Rush's doctor-shopping case.
... but in any case, immunity prevents THEM from going to jail IF their information is true ( and the information on THEIR suppliers WAS found to be accurate )
Rush is more then welcome to take them and the Enquirer to court.
"People taking antibiotics when they don't need them is one of the major reasons that we are now having increased incidence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria"
Pardon me, but not being a doctor or close to it, I say BS.
I don't know just how much you have to be sick AND get prescriptions to be "resistant"? Just how often are these people getting meds who are resistant? I'm talking young people too, not elderly. I have to wonder how much they visit the doc for meds. I hardly see a doc (except lately, but that's another issue, not normal illness stuff); maybe I get really sick every 3 years. Are you serious that having penicillin every 3 years is going to get my system so used to it that it'll be ineffective the next time I try it in 3 years?
Yes, ultimately I can blame lawyers for everything (believe me, I don't have much against docs, just that it's ironic how doc- and corporate-hating libs feed into them so often). But bottom line is, I am so used to certain illnesses - and so should my doctor who's seen me for 20 years - that I know darn well what's wrong w/me. I don't need to waste TIME (and it's always OUR time from OUR work, not the doc's - this CY you should see my work time peppered w/doc visits; I hated every time I had to set up another appt/scan/surgery just cuz I can't afford to make up the time) as well as money seeing him again every time I get sick.
>>>i'll bet that no one will be able to gain access to terri schaivo's records, though
dittos
What is your problem with Rush?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.