|
Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount Administration Split On Europe Invasion Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan Pot, Kettle On Line Two... Allies Seize Paris The Natural Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff A New Beginning My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) Tim Blair James Lileks Bleats Virginia Postrel Kausfiles Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman) Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson) Samizdata Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle) Space Alan Boyle (MSNBC) Space Politics (Jeff Foust) Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey) NASA Watch NASA Space Flight Hobby Space A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold) Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore) Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust) Mars Blog The Flame Trench (Florida Today) Space Cynic Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing) COTS Watch (Michael Mealing) Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington) Selenian Boondocks Tales of the Heliosphere Out Of The Cradle Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar) True Anomaly Kevin Parkin The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster) Spacecraft (Chris Hall) Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher) Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche) Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer) Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers) Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement) Spacearium Saturn Follies JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell) Science
Nanobot (Howard Lovy) Lagniappe (Derek Lowe) Geek Press (Paul Hsieh) Gene Expression Carl Zimmer Redwood Dragon (Dave Trowbridge) Charles Murtaugh Turned Up To Eleven (Paul Orwin) Cowlix (Wes Cowley) Quark Soup (Dave Appell) Economics/Finance
Assymetrical Information (Jane Galt and Mindles H. Dreck) Marginal Revolution (Tyler Cowen et al) Man Without Qualities (Robert Musil) Knowledge Problem (Lynne Kiesling) Journoblogs The Ombudsgod Cut On The Bias (Susanna Cornett) Joanne Jacobs The Funny Pages
Cox & Forkum Day By Day Iowahawk Happy Fun Pundit Jim Treacher IMAO The Onion Amish Tech Support (Lawrence Simon) Scrapple Face (Scott Ott) Regular Reading
Quasipundit (Adragna & Vehrs) England's Sword (Iain Murray) Daily Pundit (Bill Quick) Pejman Pundit Daimnation! (Damian Penny) Aspara Girl Flit Z+ Blog (Andrew Zolli) Matt Welch Ken Layne The Kolkata Libertarian Midwest Conservative Journal Protein Wisdom (Jeff Goldstein et al) Dean's World (Dean Esmay) Yippee-Ki-Yay (Kevin McGehee) Vodka Pundit Richard Bennett Spleenville (Andrea Harris) Random Jottings (John Weidner) Natalie Solent On the Third Hand (Kathy Kinsley, Bellicose Woman) Patrick Ruffini Inappropriate Response (Moira Breen) Jerry Pournelle Other Worthy Weblogs
Ain't No Bad Dude (Brian Linse) Airstrip One A libertarian reads the papers Andrew Olmsted Anna Franco Review Ben Kepple's Daily Rant Bjorn Staerk Bitter Girl Catallaxy Files Dawson.com Dodgeblog Dropscan (Shiloh Bucher) End the War on Freedom Fevered Rants Fredrik Norman Heretical Ideas Ideas etc Insolvent Republic of Blogistan James Reuben Haney Libertarian Rant Matthew Edgar Mind over what matters Muslimpundit Page Fault Interrupt Photodude Privacy Digest Quare Rantburg Recovering Liberal Sand In The Gears(Anthony Woodlief) Sgt. Stryker The Blogs of War The Fly Bottle The Illuminated Donkey Unqualified Offerings What she really thinks Where HipHop & Libertarianism Meet Zem : blog Space Policy Links
Space Future The Space Review The Space Show Space Frontier Foundation Space Policy Digest BBS AWOL
USS Clueless (Steven Den Beste) Media Minder Unremitting Verse (Will Warren) World View (Brink Lindsay) The Last Page More Than Zero (Andrew Hofer) Pathetic Earthlings (Andrew Lloyd) Spaceship Summer (Derek Lyons) The New Space Age (Rob Wilson) Rocketman (Mark Oakley) Mazoo Site designed by Powered by Movable Type |
An Idle Thought A Florida judge has denied Rush Limbaugh's attempts to keep his medical records private. On Fox News, I heard a replay of Rush reading a statement from his attorney, Roy Black, in which Mr. Black claimed that this was a violation of Rush' "constitutional right to privacy." I wonder if Rush agrees with his lawyer that he has such a thing? Posted by Rand Simberg at December 23, 2003 11:23 AMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/mt-diagnostics.cgi/2015 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference this post from Transterrestrial Musings.
Rush discovers the right to privacy
Excerpt: I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. Weblog: Signifying Nothing Tracked: December 24, 2003 06:22 AM
Comments
I assume he will agree. After all, I'm certain he thinks if he as to live with Roe v. Wade he should get something out of it. Posted by Mike Daley at December 23, 2003 11:34 AM
I like Rush, but, excellent point. Posted by Dugger at December 23, 2003 01:59 PMI don't listen to his show, so I have no way of knowing what his full views are on the question, but a quick Google search of his web site demonstrated to me that, while he doesn't mention it often, when he does he's pretty consistent about referring to it as the "so-called right to privacy." So, I'd have to say that the answer is, "No." Posted by Dodd at December 23, 2003 09:16 PMWithout getting in to the "right to privacy" debate, the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that one has "a reasonable expectation of privacy" in one medical records. hence, the gov't may not get at one's medical records absent consent or a warrant. So, Rush has a point here. On the other hand, upon a showing of probable cause made to a neutral magistrate, such a warrant can & should issue. The press reports suggest that probable cause likely exists. Posted by John Schedler at December 24, 2003 08:44 AMWithout getting in to the "right to privacy" debate, the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that one has "a reasonable expectation of privacy" in one medical records. hence, the gov't may not get at one's medical records absent consent or a warrant. So, Rush has a point here. Sorry but this post is about the "right to privacy" debate. Rush may have a point about right to privacy of his medical records, but we weren't discussing that. I was referring specifically to his lawyer's claim about a "constitutional right to privacy," which most self-declared conservatives (e.g. Bork, and I suspect, Rush, at least until now) claimed didn't exist. Posted by Rand Simberg at December 24, 2003 08:56 AMFrom what I've read, the real problem is that "due process" is being abused, in that there are right ways and wrong ways to access anyone's private records. The local (Democrat) prosecutor seems to be on a fishing expedition which is ignoring those procedures in an eagerness to get a High Value Target. (Compared to the original reports of drug rings and parking lot deals, nailing someone on "doctor shopping" sounds like an attempt salvage something, anything, from a fiasco.) I think that it's quite possible that Rush is being railroaded here, but again, that's beside the point of my post. Posted by Rand Simberg at December 24, 2003 09:42 AMThe "constitutional right to privacy" that Rush's lawyer is referring to is found in the Florida state constitution, Article I, Section 23: The US Constitution doesn't blantantly state a right to privacy, but the FL state constitution does. Remember that this is a matter of state law ; it is a state attorney, not a federal one, going after Limbaugh in a state, not federal, court. Therefore, the state constitution applies here. By the way, Merry Christmas! Posted by Patrick Carver at December 24, 2003 06:43 PMRand, et al: I have been a Rush fan and regular listener since 1991. While I often disagree with him, I find his show immensely entertaining, usefully provocative, and by no means as hateful or extreme as his critics allege. That said: on the matter of a "right to privacy" Rush has frequently, consistently, and unequivocally criticized the "invention" of such a right by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. But then, I find irony delightful. Heh.
Posted by Tonto at December 25, 2003 01:56 PM Rand, et al: I have been a Rush fan and regular listener since 1991. While I often disagree with him, I find his show immensely entertaining, usefully provocative, and by no means as hateful or extreme as his critics allege. That said: on the matter of a "right to privacy" Rush has frequently, consistently, and unequivocally criticized the "invention" of such a right by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. But then, I find irony delightful. Heh.
Posted by Tonto at December 25, 2003 01:57 PM I'm confused: are you suggesting that a law (or in this case, a legal principle) one disagrees with should be ignored? Lawyers are paid to defend their clients: that's their job. And I should certainly hope that--if I ever needed a lawyer--that he would do everything in his power *within the law* to defend me. This whole issue was addressed in the dialogue between Thomas More and his future son-in-law in the play "A Man For All Seasons" anyhow. Posted by David Hecht at December 26, 2003 08:09 AMI'm confused: are you suggesting that a law (or in this case, a legal principle) one disagrees with should be ignored? I am suggesting nothing. I'm just asking a question. Posted by Rand Simberg at December 26, 2003 09:51 AMWell, in this instance Patrick Carter is right -- Limbaugh's views on the implicit right to privacy that has been found in the penumbra of some part or another of the Bill of Rights, isn't relevant to the case. Florida's explicit right to privacy is the issue, and focusing what Limbaugh has said about the federal one is misdirection. Posted by McGehee at December 31, 2003 10:12 AMThis is a case of, "IT may be stupid, but I am not." The fact that Rush finds Roe v. Wade constitutionally absurd does not mean that he can't make use of it while it is in effect. This is not different from a black man who finds affirmative action repugnant taking advantage of the opportunity it affords him. Or a married soldier who thinks it is silly for him to get paid more simply because he is married, but wisely still makes use of his Basic Allowance for Housing. The fact that a situation may be stupid doesn't mean that an individual must also be stupid and not take advantage of it. Posted by Dirk Mothaar at January 1, 2004 10:58 AMI've expressed no opinion as to whether or not Rush should take advantage of it. I asked what I asked. Posted by Rand Simberg at January 1, 2004 12:01 PMYes, Rand, in the forest of hypocrisy deer-hunting, you bagged a nice little spike, but you completely missed the dozens of 30 point bucks out there (i.e. the liberals who pop a blood vessel if we dont read a rapist his right or give a lawyer to a terrorist caught in Afghanistan suddenly not thinking twice about denying the fifth amendment rights to a man because they don't like the way he exercises his first amendment rights) Also, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the prosecutor playing Gilbert to Rush's Jean fel-jean(padon spelling) is from the same county that gave us the Butterfly ballot controversey in '00 and took a lot of flack for it from conservatives everywhere, including Rush. Posted by MarkD at January 3, 2004 06:23 PMPost a comment |