All you right wing A$$holes should really love this.

Backing Limbaugh, ACLU goes to court
By Jill Barton, Associated Press, 1/13/2004

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Rush Limbaugh and the American Civil Liberties Union do not agree about much, but they are in accord that the conservative radio commentator's medical records should be off-limits to prosecutors.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Florida ACLU filed court papers yesterday supporting Limbaugh's argument that 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," the state chapter's executive director, Howard Simon, 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."

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 lawyers have asked an appeals court to keep the records sealed past a Jan. 23 deadline set by the circuit court.

Investigators went after the records and said they found 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 argues that the investigation is politically motivated, an allegation that prosecutors deny. Roy Black, Limbaugh's lawyer, says the records would prove only that 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.

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION E-MAIL TO A FRIEND

Oh the irony...

First off, I listen to Limbaugh. Personally since this case is related to the medical history I think it's fair game.

I'm proud to be a right wing A$$hole! ACLU sucks for the most part, but I still want g0d off my money and out of my pledge..

"ACLU sucks for the most part...."

But since this case involves medical records....

But I still want god out of my pledge...

But I still want god out of my money...

But the one organization dedicated to all of those goals sucks.

They're the band of fucktards who are trying to take God out of the pledge and off the bills? What turdknuckles.

I thought "The Big Fat Idiot" was Michael Moore?

Don't go changing labels, call him "The Big Fat Deaf Idiot".

Sure he's fucked up..but then again his maid tried to blackmail him, and if he was able to get a judge to seal his records..well good for him, constitution in action.

If Bill Clinton can get off scott free for perjury, there's nothing wrong with this guy getting away with his prescription drug habit - after all, they both gave their public apologies.

Rush isn't fat.

If Al Franken says it, it must be true!!

Ah you got to admire an organization that defends the Bill or Rights even when it helps someone as repulsive as Rush Limbaugh.

What do you find repulsive about him?

The ACLU defending the Bill of Rights!

hahahahaha! you funny person hahahahaha!

and Al Franken is a bully. Anyone see the news about him body slamming some Dean heckler ? That's hilarious.

I can remember hearing about several incidents involving Al Franken where he got into arguements/altercations at black tie affairs, etc - the guy is a nutcase.

Well, I find many things about him repulsive, but mostly his political views and hypocrisy.

Well the right for protection from unreasonable search and seizure by the government. So there we have Amendment IV there for one.

What is it that you find so wrong with the ACLU?

I didn't say anything here about the ACLU but you called him "fat" which he isn't and which is pretty childish of you, implying that fat people are somehow lower than you. You also called him "repulsive" which basically tells me that you disagree with his views and can't find a more more mature and intelligent way to say it than to label the other side "right wing a$$holes," and Rush as fat and repulsive.

The ACLU's action on behalf of Rush is a politically motivated action directed toward getting a snicker out of people like yourself. Rush doesn't need the ACLU's help

The ACLU quietly takes many right-wing associated cases...opponents of the ACLU just doesn't really bring them up (unless they are particularly controversial or your are on their mailing list) because they enjoy bashing them too much.

Give some examples of "right wing cases" they have taken up.

<a href="http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10147&c=142" target="_new">In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate</a>

...for one.

In the past they have fought with far right wing groups (ie, neo nazis, KKK, among others) for freedom of speech. There is the story that began this thread. The deal is...democrats don't whine and bitch when the ACLU doesn't support one of their pet causes. I used to be a little more on top of cases the ACLU took because I was subscribed to their newsletter...unfortunately for you, I don't really care enough to go dig out every link where the ACLU has defended a conservative individual or group.

The ACLU takes up plenty of cases I think are stupid, but they take up many important cases, too. Cases that need to be looked at and need some sort of clout behind them. Sometimes you take the bad with the good. The ACLU is fighting some very important fights right now that you prolly know nothing about...and probably care even less about.

Why would you say I probably know nothing about them and probably care less about them? I'm not sure what you are implying.

You're off your rocker though if you don't think that the ACLU has an agenda beyond the struggle for truth and justice.

Yes...of course...they are a racist organization helping the Nazis and the KKK spread their message across the land!

Eh? Sorry I was trying to have an intelligent civil conversation with you but I can see you're not capable.

No...what I'm saying is that they support organizations that they don't necessarily agree with because they do EXACTLY what you don't think they do.

They don't take on *every* constitutional issue out there and in some cases there is no NEED for them to. Look at the 2nd Amendment (the right to bear arms)...there is a huge organization dedicated to fighting for this particular amendment. Why do you need two huge organizations fighting for this one? Really...you don't.

The ACLU fights for what they believe are problems with free speach and equal rights...it doesn't matter where you fall on what side...at least in principle. It doesn't *always* work out this way because people are people...and everyone has an agenda. However, I try to look at the big picture...and the big picture I see with the ACLU is that even though they may fight some unpopular battles, they attempt to keep the system fair. I don't have a problem with this.

Most neo-cons hate the ACLU because they are CONSERVATIVES...conservatism is basically those who feel the system is fine and want to keep it that way. Progressives (liberals...democrats...libertarians...greens...wh atever) believe that the system is not fine and needs change. The ACLU is constantly pushing for change...I believe what the ACLU is doing is on the level of America's founding fathers. If you are not continually looking for ways to better yourself by challenging yourself then you are stagnating and wasting.

On a personal level, this means looking at what you did during the day and asking yourself if you can do better tomorrow.

First of all, you're absolutely wrong to imply that the ACLU would support the second amendment. They believe in fact that the second amendment does not convey the right of individual citizens to own guns. Given this, they refuse to take on cases defending gun ownership. Actually, they give money to organizations fighting for registration of ALL guns. In order to avoid the seeming hipocrisy of not defending the second amendment, they have adopted a very narrow definition of past Supreme Court rulings, bending their argument around their opinion that small arms are no defense against a military armed with jets and rockets. They define "the people" as used in the second amendment to carry a different meaning than the same phrase as used in the rest of the constitution. In this case, they say, "the people" actually applies not to individuals but to militia groups. Some quotes... you may recognize the names...

"I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." George Mason, Virginia's U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention, 1788.

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state." George Mason, Virginia ratification convention, 1788.

"What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." James Madison, Federalist No. 29.

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience, or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788.

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms." Richard Henry Lee, Letters from The Federal Farmer, 1788.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

Clearly, the ACLU's position here is not supported by any of the words of the founders nor is it supported when viewed against the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.


Saying that I hate the ACLU because I'm conservative is like me saying you hate the military because you're liberal. It requires several assumptions in logic and implies a lack of intelligent reasoning on the part of the other. I dislike the ACLU because they, like many other organizations including the NRA since you brought up gun control, are a partisan tool of extremists sacrificing common sense at the altar of headlines. When you have two sides, the middle gets ignored.

Two teachers get suspended in Maine during the Iraq war. One for putting up anti-Bush signs in the classroom, the other for wearing a cross in school. Which do you think they defended?

Florida passes a bill to allow some students to use school vouchers to attend the private school of their CHOICE if they CHOOSE to. The ACLU is blocking the enactment of the legislation because they say it hurts public school and is therefore unconstitutional. On top of that they are saying that none of the voucher money can go to any schools with a religious affiliation. How is this defending freedom of speech and religion?

The ACLU has denied the right of high school students from expressing their religion in any way during school events such as in graduation speeches. In fact, they released a "model speech code" to school districts giving guidelines for what is acceptable to them. Eh? I guess the first amendment only applies as long as it fits into the ACLU's agenda.

The ACLU has repeatedly fought against any use of filtering technology on public library and school computers with internet access to keep children from viewing pornography. Meanwhile, they have fought on behalf of NAMBLA to allow publication of such articles as "In Praise of Penises: How to make that special boy feel good" published by a NYC school teacher.
/em looks around for the common sense.


From Newsmax.com...
"Abdurahman Alamoudi, an alleged senior terrorist operative, is behind bars on an 18-count indictment. But he can take satisfaction in the fact that a court in California has just given the green light to schools following ACLU’s religion-in-the-classroom guidelines, which he helped to formulate. A federal judge judge has now upheld the constitutionality of an intensive three-week course in California government schools that requires children to choose a Muslim name, wear Islamic garb, memorize verses from the Koraan, pray to Allah, play “jihad games, and simulate worship activities related to the Five Pillars of Islam.” The next step: likely an appeal to the notoriously left-wing 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which deems the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. But hasn't American Civil Liberties Union lectured us that religious instruction in school violates what it describes as “separation of church and state” (a phrase that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution)? Read on. That injunction seems to depend on which religion is involved. The guidelines in ACLU's document is in effect a warning (some would say an implied threat) to schools as to how they can avoid legal challenges from the same ACLU on church/state issues in the classroom. Alamoudi, founder and former executive director of American Muslim Council, was jailed last fall on charges that include taking money believed to come from a charity Libya has used to support terror, taking $340,000 in cash with the intent to bring it to Syria from London. It is also believed some of the money was to be taken to Saudi Arabia (or Saudi accounts) and from there to organizations of influence the United States. The charges include money-laundering, misuse of a passport and failure to report bank accounts." WTH?

A group like the ACLU is necessary to defend liberties. The ACLU itself... is a political attack dog and social institution pushing a liberal agenda on a mostly unaware public.

www.humanplague.com/archi...wnlong.jpg (http://www.humanplague.com/archive/pissoff/pics/downlong.jpg)