Rush Loses in the Florida Supreme Court

Yahoo ^ | April 28, 2005 | AP

[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.

[GOP_Proud]

My, my, aren't the Floridians getting touchy.

Great way to turn light-hearted banter into just nasty barbs. You need new material.

Like I said, we hillbillies have been the butt of the jokes in this country forever. We can take anything you dish out. We've heard it all.

[Flux Capacitor]

----Perhaps you are correct in stating that the prosecutor is motivated by politics, but...----

"But" WHAT?! I don't care what the courts said. The courts also recently said that it was okay for the government to starve an innocent woman to death in the same state; that doesn't mean that I'm going to nod my head in agreement and urge Al Franken to move to Florida.

Hell, you're even admitting the possibility that the prosecutor is politically motivated -- which, as far as I'm concerned, stops your argument cold. But no, this, along with the absence of any evidence that Rush did something illegal, doesn't matter, because Limbaugh got hooked on prescription painkillers and we all know how horrible that makes him. All I needed to hear, Mister Independent Thought.

-Dan

[longtermmemmory]

It just shows the pool of judicial candidates for the state courts are far to the left and have little interest in any non left view.

There are two relativly new laws cchools in Fl and the already have professors who are well known to be the looney left with extreme prejudice. It is not getting any better.

[PubliusEXMachina]

ROTFLMAO, I love the smell of twisted logic in the morning.

[ClintonBeGone]

It is a fact that he did not abide by it, agreed?

I think the better way to state it would be was the prosecutor even required to abide by it. He clearly acted under another provision of law - but to say he 'did not abide by it' implies some sort of wrong doing.

[eno_]

Correct, you did NOT say how you feel about all cops and did not even say if you don't like ones who are felony frauds. Some people even like people who do drugs...

Perhaps this morning, before your first drink, so that you do not fall into incoherence as above, you could tell us the relative financial and social impact of CHP's senior management being a gang of felony fraudsters compared to Rush's painkiller addiction, and whether hundreds of corrupt LEOs is as interesting to you as this case is.

Since you are a lickspittle for cops, I expect a series of excuses and lies.

[Vote 4 Nixon]

And they should have slapped his drug popping A$$!!! I don't know how many times I listened to him on the radio railing against the drug abuse culture in this country and LO and behold he turns out to be a druggie too. I can take alot of things but a self righteous hypocrite just turns my stomach. Down with him I say, and let the torch pass to someone else.

[F.J. Mitchell]

A fact for sure. They are too far to the left to ever be trusted to do what is right.

[RS]

Kind of wondering how an "equal protection clause would apply, since this is simply an investigation ...

[RS]

"Perhaps this morning, before your first drink, so that you do not fall into incoherence as above..."

Gee and I though you LIKE people who do drugs ...

Since you seem to have a problem with words bigger then 4 letters...

Do you like ANY cops ?

[Ken H]

Kind of wondering how an "equal protection clause would apply, since this is simply an investigation ...

The FL legislature wrote a law saying that medical records were to be obtained via a subpoena and proper notification. The prosecutor did not follow the law, therefore Rush was denied the protection of Statute 395.

[eno_]

Do you like ANY cops ?

Among the 20% of CHP chiefs that didn't add a dishonest disability cherry on top of their already oversweet retirement package, I guess you might find a few who are not corrupt in other ways. Some of them might be likable enough.

Are there ANY cops you DON'T strap on te kneepads for?

[eno_]

And they should have slapped his drug popping A$$!!! I don't know how many times I listened to him on the radio railing against the drug abuse culture in this country and LO and behold he turns out to be a druggie too. I can take alot of things but a self righteous hypocrite just turns my stomach. Down with him I say, and let the torch pass to someone else.

Rush is an addict for sure, but, try as the naysayers might, evidence for hypocrisy is thin on the ground. So tell me, got any quotes from those "I don't know how many times?" This point has been raised, and debunked, repeatedly on FR.

Do you hate addicts, or do you hate hypocrits?

[Ken H]

but to say he 'did not abide by it' implies some sort of wrong doing.

Indeed it does. The legislature wrote the law to protect medical privacy. The prosecutor ignored it. The FL legislature has grounds for impeachment and removal from office, IMO.

[ClintonBeGone]

The legislature wrote the law to protect medical privacy. The prosecutor ignored it.

The prosecutor operated under another provision of law. He's fine. Did Rush challenge the search warrant?

[Ken H]

The prosecutor operated under another provision of law. He's fine.

So he can pick and choose which law he wants to follow?

Did Rush challenge the search warrant?

He's been challenging it for over a year.

If you mean at the time of execution, I don't believe he was given advance notice.

[RS]

When did I specify CHP chiefs ?

Is it simply a general distain for those employed in law inforcement, or some problem with the laws they are tasked to enforce... Since this topic is about Rushs supposed illegal drug purchasing, -

Generally, how do you feel about this Nations drug laws ?

[FreeReign]

Among the 20% of CHP chiefs that didn't add a dishonest disability cherry on top of their already oversweet retirement package, I guess you might find a few who are not corrupt in other ways. Some of them might be likable enough.

What percentage of drug dealers do you find likable?

[RS]

"The legislature wrote the law to protect medical privacy."

Correct, but the legislature did NOT write the law to hamstring law enforcement. If they meant to disallow the use of search warrants, they would have specifically denied their use, just as they specified situations where NO subpeona is needed.

Does anyone know if there is ANY movement whatsoever in the Republican controlled florida legislature to "correct" the wording of 395 ? If not, one must assume that the legislature has no problem with the way the courts are handling it.

[Ken H]

The legislature wrote the law to protect medical privacy.

Correct, but the legislature did NOT write the law to hamstring law enforcement.

How is requiring a subpoena hamstringing law enforcement?

If they meant to disallow the use of search warrants, they would have specifically denied their use, just as they specified situations where NO subpeona is needed.

AFAIK, medical records were obtainable by either warrant or subpoena before passage of 395. What is the point of writing a redundant law reiterating that a subpoena is AN acceptable method?

The intent of the law was to set the rules governing medical privacy. I think the better argument is as follows: if the legislature intended that medical records be obtainable by warrant or subpoena, the law would have said so. A search warrant negates the whole purpose of the subpoena clause of 395.

And I'm not sure what you're referring to re situations where no subpoena is needed. The only situations I know of where none is needed is a life threatening emergency or when the patient voluntarily releases their records (to an insurance company or consulting physicians, for eg.).

Does anyone know if there is ANY movement whatsoever in the Republican controlled florida legislature to "correct" the wording of 395 ? If not, one must assume that the legislature has no problem with the way the courts are handling it.

This is the first court challenge to the law. Depending on what Rush does next, it has either just ended, or it will continue in the Federal courts. I'd think they would at least wait for a final judicial determination.