commander bunnypants
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-13-04 01:23 PM
Original message |
The ACLU is defending OXYRUSH?????? |
|
The lawyer guy did say "yes, we know it is Rush" but on a macro scale, his medical records are private and this could open a slippery slope in FL.
I love ACLU
DDQM
|
Burma Jones
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-13-04 01:24 PM
Response to Original message |
1. The ACLU has defended REAL Nazis |
|
Edited on Fri Feb-13-04 01:26 PM by new_beawr
I have to give them their props, they stick by their guns - the ACLU I mean, not the Nazis.
|
LynneSin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-13-04 01:24 PM
Response to Original message |
2. They defended the repukes in Campaign Finance Reform |
|
and they hired Dick Armey and Bob Barr.
ACLU has issues from time to time
:shrug:
|
mark0rama
(930 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-13-04 01:26 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I love 'em too, and that's why. |
|
The true test of your commitment to civil liberties, is your willingness to defend those of someone you find as loathsome as Rush.
And it makes the r-wingers who bash the ACLU look extra-foolish.
|
pagerbear
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-13-04 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
Just like the famous NYC lawyer who defending criminals considered to be repugnant because that's the way our legal system. When I was on jury duty, we were told by the judge that it's not the defense attorney's job to prove the defendant didn't commit the crime--it's his job to convince the jury that the prosecution hadn't proved he had.
|
cosmicdot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-13-04 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
10. that's the thing ... and, yet the right is always bad-mouthing them |
|
ACLU - fair & balanced Faux News - forgetaboutit
|
PVnRT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-13-04 01:35 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Yes, it's called consistency |
|
Unlike right-wingers, they don't just protect those that like them. They recognize that what affects one may affect all of us.
Frankly, in this case, I agree with them and Rush's lawyers. There is too much at stake here - why give it all up just to satisfy a vendetta against one man?
|
polmaven
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-13-04 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
I may be off base, so maybe you can help me out. If medical records cannot be subpoenaed, then how is criminal activity involving medical "treatment" to be proved? I am not a lawyer, so I am really at a loss as to from where the ACLU and Roy Black are coming. If the man broke the law by doctor shopping for drugs, how does one prove that if the records cannot be seen?
|
PVnRT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-13-04 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
For one, there is patient-doctor privilege - are you willing to get rid of that because someone might have committed a crime? Remember, THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT RUSH, THIS IS ABOUT EVERYONE. Do you want the FBI snooping around your medical records to see if you're doing anything bad? How about health insurance companies? Potential employers?
For another, the DEA is already cracking down on doctors that they *think* overprescribe things like Oxycontin. The problem is, such actions are making it harder and harder for people who actually have problems with chronic pain to get the treatment they need, and the doctors who get raided, when found innocent, have their reputations ruined. Allowing the government to start poking into patient records is just going to make things worse - they will start assuming people are abusing these drugs when they're not.
It all boils down to a legal precedent that should not be set.
|
polmaven
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-13-04 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
11. There is a difference. |
|
If there is evidence that a crime has been committed, and a judge can be convinced there is probable cause, why is it not acceptable to subpoena the specific records pertaining to that investigation?
I never said anything about the FBI "snooping around your medical records to see if you're doing anything bad"! And where did you get that I thought it would be OK for health insurers or potential employers? I never said anything even close to that! Please don't address my serious question with prattle.
Listen, I am a "card carrying" member of the ACLU, and I think they are essential to guard our rights. I do not always agree with their choice of causes, but will continue to support their important mission.
|
PVnRT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-13-04 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
13. I did address your question |
|
Or did you miss the point where I said "precedence"?
|
polmaven
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Feb-14-04 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #13 |
|
Edited on Sat Feb-14-04 09:49 AM by polmaven
In cases of insurance fraud, etc. I have been in the insurance claims field for nearly 30 years. If there is evidence that a person is claiming to have been injured in one way, but there is evidence to show that he/she had actually been treated for the same injury some time in the past, those medical records can be subpoenaed and used in court.
When you began to prattle about the FBI health insurers and prospective employers, rummaging around in everyone's past medical records without a probable cause to do so, you are NOT answering the question I asked in a pertinent way. I did NOT even begin to advocate that everyone's records become an open book.
I do not, for example, agree that the Attorney General should be able to subpoena the medical records of the patients who have recently undergone late term abortions simply for the reason that the doctor who performed them had disagreed with the enactment of the law. That is not probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.
In the case of Rush Limbaugh, There is no way I could agree that those medical records should be made public. The content of the records is private, but should be available to use in proving the crime. The public needs only to know that there was proof, not all the gory details.
We do have laws, however, in this country, and procedures to follow in proving violations of those laws. If procedures are followed,to the letter, that should be treated no differently than any other evidence.
I doubt that you would advocate that things like insurance fraud and illegal medical activity should not be prosecuted because that illegal activity is protected under doctor/patient privacy.
|
zbdent
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-13-04 01:40 PM
Response to Original message |
6. And yet the freepertypes in Michigan would be happy to |
|
turn over the medical records of abortion recipients (with no blacked out or "snipped" portions).
Well, defending Rush truly does clarify his claim of "All Criminals Love Us". Don't forget what he said about his attorney, when he was defending Michael Kennedy Smith.
|
mark0rama
(930 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-13-04 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. I've never seen/heard quotes of things Rush said about Roy Black. |
|
Do you know of any posted to the Web? I'd love to see them.
Sadly, Rush will never see the inside of a cell for his crimes, but I take some satisfaction in knowing he will pay millions to a high-profile criminal defense lawyer to stay out.
|
LTR
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-13-04 06:54 PM
Response to Original message |
12. They supported NAMBLA! |
|
North American Man-Boy Love Asociation. :puke:
They play no favorites.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 12:51 PM
Response to Original message |