ACLU to defend Rush

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jonesy9

member
Joined
Oct 23, 2003
Messages
405
Location
MA
Interesting. The ACLU and Rush. Will wonders never cease? I'm not up on FL law or medical legal issues but I still wonder why his records shouldn't be used or referenced to prove or disprove that he was engaged in an illegal conspiracy to obtain illicit controlled substances. I don't really blame Rush for doing whatever is neccessary to prevent being charged for his crimes, survival instinct is strong, but the law is the law. Be a man and face the consequnces of your actions.






ACLU defends Limbaugh's privacy in prescription drug case
JILL BARTON
Associated Press

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Rush Limbaugh and the American Civil Liberties Union don't agree about much, but they are in accord on at least one matter - 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 state 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," Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida, 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."

The organization said it wanted "to vindicate every Floridian's fundamental right to privacy by ensuring that the state be required to comply" with the law.

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 the 4th District Court of Appeal to keep the medical 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 attorney Roy Black said the issues in the case affect all Floridians, whatever their political bent.

"As both the ACLU and we have stated, the seizure of Mr. Limbaugh's private medical records without due process is not only a violation of Florida law and the Florida Constitution, but also a threat to everyone's fundamental right to privacy," Black said in a statement Monday.

Black and Limbaugh have argued that the investigation is politically motivated - a charge that prosecutors deny. 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.
 
Nope.

We ACLU members are used to the fact that to protect everyone's rights, it is necessary to protect the rights of Nazis, pornographers, and even (gasp!) conservatives!

It's not that we love these folks, it's that we know that the best way to take away civil rights is to start by taking them away from unpopular people.

The ACLU-bashers take things like this much harder than we do.
 
Surprise? Hardly. Rush is in the wrong, and should fess up to what he's done. I've pretty much lost what little respect I had for him. The ACLU has a habit of aiding folks who are in the wrong, so no surprise there.
 
I have absolutely no respect for Rush other than as an entertainer (& that is a good enough one! to make his millions & more power to him) - he is certainly no bastion of conservativeness - otherwise, he would ascribe to, ... uh? what's that's word? oh yeah! the constitution, limitations on federal powers, etc. .... anyway ...

Mpayne's:

"We ACLU members are used to the fact that to protect everyone's rights, it is necessary to protect the rights of Nazis, pornographers, and even (gasp!) conservatives!'

& Gasp! What about the second amendment, or that of others to choose free associations, or not?

:barf: ! in spades, sir!

"It's not that we love these folks, it's that we know that the best way to take away civil rights is to start by taking them away from unpopular people."

Unmitigated BS, sir.

Your ilk (the American Communist Lawyers Union) would deprive even some of The Most Popular (Boy Scouts, in particular) from being forced! to associate with those whom they'd rather not. You attempt to force your ways upon those who would just as not, & rather very peacebly, I'd say, refrain from having your views thrust down their throats. No pun intended.

IF. Mind you, IF, the ACLU wanted to protect civil rights (of which there are no such thing - only individual rights - but a lesson for another day), the ACLU would be triumphant regards the second amendment (the most purest form of an individual to defend their own families ..... amongst others) - but they will not.

"The ACLU-bashers take things like this much harder than we do."

You betcha, pal.

Your right to free speech is unencombered by me & through the blessings of a very astute bill of rights.

Your ilk has attempted to sully these things until they are no longer recognisable.

But, y'all just "wanna get along?" while destroying the very fabric on which this country was founded?

Don't give us this soft-sell song & dance BS.

The ACLU never attempts to "protect everyone's rights."

They attempt to bastardize the very notion of.
 
I got a call last week from a guy who wanted me to send emails to the people on our CCW group's email alert list announcing an appearance by Bob Barr and another person regarding privacy issues. I like Bob Barr, and would have no problem sending such an email.

However, the other person--forget her name--was from the ACLU, as was the guy calling me. I told him it was more than ironic that the ACLU, which does not recognize the 2nd Amendment, was calling a pro-gun group and asking them to advertise their event.

As for Rush, I think he's been contrite about his problem. Being involved in a legal battle limits what he can say about the issue.
 
labgrade,
I 100% agree with you. Very strong and to the point post. I would be interested to see any ACLU members respond to labgrade and especially about the Boy Scouts and the 2nd Amendment.
 
Don't know where you all have been for the last 40 years but in my estimation, everything the ACLU is a publicity stunt.
 
Looking up the right to keep and bear arms on the ACLU website, you find this:

What is the ACLU’s position on gun control?
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control.

Hmm. That doesn't make much sense, and sounds like a cop-out or doublespeak. Turns out, it is.

Quoting the ACLU website's "statement on gun control":

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it.

Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25

(Emphasis mine in both cases)

The ACLU is quite clearly opposed to the right to keep and bear arms, their disingenuous double-speak elsewhere notwithstanding.

The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU.

If this is "not ignoring the Second Ammendment," we would be better off if they DID ignore it. :rolleyes:
 
And for the ACLU supporters out there who couldn't figure out that the ACLU is anti-RKBA:

Main Entry: dis·in·gen·u·ous
Pronunciation: "di-s&n-'jen-y&-w&s
Function: adjective
Date: 1655
: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness :

Related Words: false, feigned, insincere...

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

;)
 
labgrade,

I am no apologist for Rush, but I would like you to defend this statement:
he is certainly no bastion of conservativeness
. Specifically your reference to "limitations on federal powers"

I would like to know when he has ever called for more or greater federal powers.
 
labgrade, if I understood what you meant to say, I'd respond. Try calming down, and brushing up on, you know, English.

No, the ACLU does not defend the Second Amendment. Am I happy about this? No. Does the GOA defend free speech? No. So support both.

I am more and more convinced that gun owners are just like gun grabbers -- they believe what they are conditioned to believe in spite of the facts.

See this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53412&highlight=aclu

Is the ACLU aiding folks in the wrong? No.

How about here?
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55803&highlight=aclu

How about here?
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45033&highlight=aclu


As I wrote here:http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54190&highlight=aclu
I am a member of the ACLU.

They defend the rights of unpopular groups. So what? Unpopular folks are the ones who get their rights trampled! Duh! Remember "First they came for the Jews"? If the Feds can deny free speech to despicable scum like NAMBLA, they can deny it to, um, let's say... gun owners?

They don't support the Second Amendment. That sucks. But show me where they fight it.

We are NOT going to talk about church and state again. That only gets threads closed. Suffice to say that a school-sanctioned prayer at a football game IS the Church of America.

I have often thought that even if a quarter of NRA members joined the ACLU for $20, we could turn around that 2A plank in about five minutes.

Who's with me?

And I wrote here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39511&highlight=aclu

I, too, am disappointed by the ACLU's defense of the bill of rights -- except for the Second Amendment.

But you have to be an idiot to buy the unmitigated crap in the above post.

Free speech is for everyone. Even Nazis and communists.

What does the Second Amendment say? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." We get upset when the "antis" say, "but what they meant is..." and we insist that it be interpreted in its plain English meaning.

So what is so damned hard to understand about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?

NO law. None.

You can't pick and choose. If you support the Second Amendment, get behind the First!

Free speech is for you, for me, for Nazis and Commies, and even for liberals! It's for people who like looking at pictures of nekkid (adult) ladies, and for the ladies and their photographers.

The First Amendment means no state-sponsored religious expression in the courtrooms, classrooms, coins or Congress. And what a shame it is that it is so poorly enforced!

The Bill of Rights means no illegal searches of you, your Arab-looking neighbor, or even the Communist Party HQ. It's called equal protection under the law, kids, and it's what makes us great.

Freedom is for everyone, not just those we agree with.

Matt

Seriously, go check out what the ACLU is doing here:http://www.aclu.org/court/courtmain.cfm

See how many cases you are on the same side as the ACLU on. Then decide whether they deserve your scorn.
 
No, the ACLU does not defend the Second Amendment. Am I happy about this? No. Does the GOA defend free speech? No. So support both.

False parallelism. The ACLU is actively opposed to the right to keep and bear arms as a matter of ideology. The GOA, last I checked, don't have a statement on their website like:

"The question therefore is not whether to restrict freedom of speech, but how much to restrict it."

"Freedom of speech by individuals is not constitutionally protected."

Call me crazy, but I don't support those who denounce my rights. And that is exactly what the ACLU is doing, right on their web site for the world to see.

Freedom is for everyone, not just those we agree with.

A noble sentiment that is the exact opposite of the ACLU position vis-a-vis the 2nd Ammendment.

They don't support the Second Amendment. That sucks. But show me where they fight it.

In their own words, on their own website.

I am more and more convinced that gun owners are just like gun grabbers -- they believe what they are conditioned to believe in spite of the facts.

That would explain your support for the ACLU in light of their oppenly declared opposition to the right to keep and bear arms. Or as the ACLU puts it:

"The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it."
 
False parallelism. The ACLU is actively opposed to the right to keep and bear arms as a matter of ideology.

False statement. The ACLU is an extremely active group, with hundreds of court actions per year. Find even one relating to RTKB and I'll eat my hat.

They use the ideology to support their decision not to defend the 2nd. That sucks. But they do not fight against the 2nd. They are not gun grabbers.
 
They use the ideology to support their decision not to defend the 2nd.

And use their web site as a bully pulpit to attack the very IDEA of the right to keep and bear arms. It sure looks like you are making a distinction without a difference. If the American Nazi Party has a website saying they want to kill all the Jews, are they somehow NOT anti-semites simply because they aren't ready to do it yet?

They are not gun grabbers.

The ACLU is supposed to DEFEND people when their rights are violated. Of course they wouldn't actively petition against the 2nd Ammendment. Instead, they withold their support from the victims of gun grabbers and let things run their course. Why intervene when their active witholding of support for the 2nd Ammendment side works just fine so far?

It is the ACLU that claims it is unethical to NOT defend people whose rights are threatened, even if they disagree with the actions of the person whose rights were violated. Yet it is somehow ethical to let those who had their 2nd Ammendment rights violated just twist on the vine...? I think the word I'm looking for here is "hypocrite."

"The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it."
 
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."

Well then maybe they should be fighting against Ohio for making so newspapers can publish who get a CCW permit.
 
Yeah the ACLU doesn't defend your 2nd rights at all. I'm not a 2nd A absolutist either, but the ACLU doesn't walk a middle ground with this issue. There are many CCW cases that directly relate to racial discrimination and other core ACLU principles, people have asked the ACLU but the ACLU will not touch them.

They also don't defend your rights to free religious expression if you're christian. I have seen many christian religious groups go to the ACLU and State CLUs after their rights have been trampled by organizations like state universities only to be told to take a hike because your kind isn't welcome here. Didn't you know? Christians are the oppressors. Why would we help the friend of our enemy? Now Jews and Wiccans is another matter granted and good for them because maybe, just maybe, they'll make a precedent that helps the christians by accident.:fire:
 
The ACLU is composed of--present company excepted--trial lawyers. Those who seek to make $$ by going after the deepest pockets.

In terms of 2nd Amendment cases, those $$$ aren't going to come from the perpetrators of the hurt on the plaintiffs, they're going to come from the defendants: people or companies with money.

Isn't it amazing that some of the most liberal constitutional scholars--Lawrence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz among them --have come to the conclusion that the Second Amendment means what it says, yet the lesser scholars at the ACLU haven't been able to figure out what those 27 simple words mean?
 
The ACLU does OCCASIONALY do things that i apporove of. But the lack of support for the second ammendment combined with an apparent desire to take cases entirely based on their political aspects leaves me in a pretty comfortable position of NOT supporting them in any way.

I like how Payne supports his arguments by citing his own posts, its cute.
 
Mpayne:

We are NOT going to talk about church and state again. That only gets threads closed. Suffice to say that a school-sanctioned prayer at a football game IS the Church of America

How does a local school district's permission to recite prayers at a football game constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause, i.e., Congress making a law respecting the establishment of a religion?

The First Amendment means no state-sponsored religious expression in the courtrooms, classrooms, coins or Congress. And what a shame it is that it is so poorly enforced!

No, it doesn't mean that no religious expression is permitted, it means just exactly what a "plain language" interpertation of it would indicate: that it is a limitation on Congress's lawmaking in support of religion and not something designed to rid all public places of any vestige of religious symbolism. If it were, why would the 10 Commandments still be displayed in bas-relief at the Supreme Court building?

No mention of God on coins, stamps, Congress? Then why hasn't the ACLU sued to have the Library of Congress cease to display the Declaration of Independence. It's chock-a-block full of references to things like "...endowed by their creator" "...God..." etc.

No, the ACLU does not defend the Second Amendment. Am I happy about this? No. Does the GOA defend free speech? No. So support both

You're incorrect on the GOA. They spent considerable amount of money lobbying against the unconstitutional campaign finance reform act, the same one opposed by the ACLU, NRA, et al. at the SCOTUS

Face it, the ACLU cherry picks only those cases which can be pushed for publicity and hence more donations, and those which support its far left social agenda.
 
MrAcheson:

They also don't defend your rights to free religious expression if you're christian. I have seen many christian religious groups go to the ACLU and State CLUs after their rights have been trampled by organizations like state universities only to be told to take a hike because your kind isn't welcome here. Didn't you know? Christians are the oppressors. Why would we help the friend of our enemy? Now Jews and Wiccans is another matter granted and good for them because maybe, just maybe, they'll make a precedent that helps the christians by accident

I can't recall a single case where the ACLU has sued to have any non-Christian religious symbols like a Menorah removed from a public place. If they ever did, it would constitute only a vanishingly small percentage of the Establishment Clause cases they have brought to court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top