XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.impeach.bush, alt.politics.democrats   
   XPost: seattle.politics   
   From: stderr2@backpacker.com   
      
   thewhit wrote:   
   >   
   > Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )   
   >  wrote in message   
   > news:3FECBDED.8FA5C4CD@backpacker.com...   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > Clave wrote:   
   > > >   
   > > > "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"   
   > > >  wrote in message   
   > news:3FEA08D4.13731D@backpacker.com...   
   > > > >   
   > > > >   
   > > > > Fred wrote:   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > "Jeremy Adelson"  wrote in message   
   > > > > > news:ZTmGb.47773$ss5.41166@clgrps13...   
   > > > > > > They're all fucking hypocrites.   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > and speaking of hypocrites:   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > --   
   > > > > >  "There is no right to privacy specifically enumerated in the   
   > Constitution."   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > Rush Limbaugh,  June 27, 2003,   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > "It's not up to me to prove my innocence by giving up my right to   
   > > > > > privacy. I have to give up my right to privacy now in order for the   
   > > > > > state who is, in effect, just casting a line out there, hoping to   
   > net   
   > > > > > something. They've got to invade my privacy to do this."   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > Isn't Limbaugh right?   
   > > >   
   > > > Which time?   
   > > >   
   > > When has Limbaugh said other than that medical records should be under   
   > > the control of the person who they are of?   
   > >   
   >   
   > he is confusing the concept of constitutional rights vs. case law,   
   > legislative fiat etc.   
   >   
   > there is a right to privacy vis a vis medical records (and patient doctor   
   > confidentiality, priest-penitent , etc.)   
   >   
   > none of these are of course mentioned in the constitution.   
   >   
   > rush does need to understand that if he committed crimes connected to his   
   > doctor-pateint relationship, that his privacy rights vis a vis same are   
   > significantly diminished.   
   >   
   > generally, this is more applicable to dealers than users.   
   >   
   > for example, a person with a prescription for substance X is caught selling   
   > substance X.  you can be damn certain the cops will get that person's   
   > prescription records to establish corpus delicti.   
   >   
   > as they should.   
   >   
   Except that in this case, we don't have a dealer in Limbaugh, but a   
   dealer in the person who has turned him in, whom they don't seem to want   
   to bother with, who has apparently blackmailed him and who has sold his   
   supposed story to tabloids for cash. No illicit drugs were ever found on   
   Limbaugh else he would've been arrested. This is a fishing expedition to   
   the Dead Sea. There's nothing there to catch.   
      
      
   --   
   "Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."   
   +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)