Rush Limbaugh and the ACLU
 

This is a transcript from countdown last night

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3947807/

[/QUOTE]
Sample items taken from Mr. Limbaugh‘s own Web site.

September 12, 2003: “If this guy had burned that flag,” Limbaugh said, “the ACLU and countless other groups would be down there supporting this guy‘s right to desecrate Old Glory. But because he‘s flying the American flag respectfully, none of the so-called civil libertarians makes a peep.”

September 23, 2003: “The ACLU has decided they‘re not going to appeal the 9th Circuit‘s decision to reinstate the California recall election. They must not really care all that must about you stupid—their term, not mine—minorities and poor people.”

December 23, 2003: “Where have all these so-called civil libertarians gone, the ACLU and the rest of them, claiming our government is overreaching?”

Maybe I am overreaching, but I do not think Mr. Limbaugh likes the ACLU. And something else he has shown an antipathy to, the right to privacy.

Again, from his own Web site. August 22, 2003: “I warned you about this ever-broadening interpretation of the so-called right to privacy. It‘s not a right specifically enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights,” a quote that made an odd preface to this next one from December 23, 2003: “Now they need my medical records, my private medical records, to find out if I‘ve committed a crime called doctor shopping? They now have to invade my privacy to learn whether I have broken the law?”

Today, the ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Mr. Limbaugh‘s argument that the seizure of his private medical records was illegal. And Limbaugh gratefully accepted the ACLU‘s help.

His attorney, Roy Black, said he and Limbaugh—quote—“are pleased

that the ACLU has filed a motion” and added that the seizure was—quote -

· “also a threat to everyone‘s fundamental right to privacy”—unquote.

To say nothing of, as Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Clemens might tell you, if they were talking about somebody besides themselves, everyone‘s fundamental right to change their opinions on a dime and contradict months and even years of their own conduct and beliefs, everyone‘s fundamental right, the ungenerous among us might call it, to hypocrisy. Check, please.

[/QUOTE]

Anyone else see the hypocracy and irony?

Not really.

The ACLU has a mixed record supporting civil rights.

This is one of the relatively few times I agree with Limbaugh.

Yes, I do see the hypocrisy. At least that which is displayed by the ACLU in selectively filing against violations which fit their political agenda while promoting themselves as the champion of all the people and ignoring those issues which don't fit their beliefs.

Limbaugh makes use of his right to free speech to criticize an organization which he typically disagrees with. Is that wrong? Nope.

Is one of the ACLU's hot topics individual privacy? Yep. They should be filing suit as this records seizure has smelled since it first occured.

Wow I bet that Liberals are red in the face over this one... who'd a thunk that the ACLU would help Rush.

Every "issue" organization does this. Substitute NRA for ACLU in your quote, and you'll see what I mean.

I think the point here is that Rush Limbaugh's newfound embrace of the right to privacy stinks. The fact that the ACLU is helping his defense simply confirms that their beliefs are genuine and aren't politically motivated.

I'm lad they're helping him. Nobody, even people who I don't like, should have their private medical records illegally siezed. Maybe this will show him that the ACLU isn't all that bad, and that they really do care about civil liberties.

I hope that this whole situation of his opens his eyes a little bit and shows him that people sometimes need help, not just punishment.

I don't see why, the ACLU takes

very literally. Too bad conservatives always assume that just because they defend some very disreputable people, the ACLU agrees and espouses the beliefs of those people.

I personally view them as a bunch of Liberal-oppurtunistic Christo-phobes. They sure as hell don't defend my right tp say what I want, in fact they've gone out of there way many times to curb it. If you don't think that their are other motivations to helping Rush Limbaugh, you are nieve.

The NRA doesn't claim to represent everyone (including those for gun laws). The ACLU does.

The ACLU's politics go hand in hand with the cases they bring.

Yeah that's it. Broad brush & ridiculous assertion all wrapped into one.

True...better and more accurate phrase would've been

Too bad many conservatives often assume that just because they defend some very disreputable people, the ACLU agrees and espouses the beliefs of those people.

Not true...the NRA often characterizes itself as the defender of 2nd amendment rights of ALL americans.

You've got to be dillusional if you think the ACLU does a better job and is more representative in their quest to "defend and uphold" the bill of rights, then the NRA and the 2nd amendment.

True enough. My mistake. I guess my badly communicated point was that the NRA takes on all legislation and actions which restrict the use and ownership of guns.

The ACLU does not take on all issues of free speech, just the ones that fit their agendas. The one pointed to at the start of this thread is a prime example. Should the right to display a flag not be defended just as enthusiastically as the right to burn one?

Wow..."dillusional" (sic)...I'm not sure what that word means but it looks like it might mean the opposite of illusion which means I'm seeing the topic clearly?

You may have meant delusional, in which case you can relax...I'm not suffering from any delusions.

I'm sure many people who don't share your fanatically conservative point of view would disagree with your assessment of the ACLU vs. NRA.

While I may not always agree with the ACLU and what they choose to defend or not defend, I do consider them to be an important and worthy organization and one that I will continue to support.

I know of at least 2 cases where the ACLU has defended an individuals right to fly a flag. I'm not aware of a case where they've not supported an individuals right to fly a flag. I'm not saying they haven't, I'm just not aware of one.

As for flag burning...the ACLU may have defended the practice, but it was the courts that ultimately decided that flag-burning was a protected form of free speech.

I hate both groups. The ACLU refuses to address the second amendment, and the NRA rolls over when it is politically expedient.

My point was Rush at one time was saying how there is no "Right to privacy" then all the sudden he is claiming there is a right to privacy. I think the ACLU is doing the right thing by helping someone who obviously dislikes them. Rush is the hypocrite here.

They would defend to the death your right to call them Liberal-opportunistic Christo-phobes. I'd like to know when the ACLU has "gone out of their way many times to curb [your right to say what you want]". I'd love to hear examples.

/goes off to check his dictionary for Liberal-opportunistic Christo-phobes...

LOL! Now that's a $5 phrase if I ever heard one!



Rush Limbaugh and the ACLU? Makes me think that maybe there IS a God, and he's a very funny Guy.

1. A gun is tangable it can be felt, seen, tasted, heard and often times has a smell. Civil liberties are intangable you can't hear, taste, see or smell a civil. This makes their causes intrisincly different when in comes to legal matters, such as defending gun use and civil liberties use, and a comparison of their track records in the legal arena is flawed for the same reason.

2. If you'r going to make claimes like this provide a source or warrants, a statement like this is absurd and only provokes ridicule from other TFPers.

3. A comparison of the two organizations is rather flawed considering that civil liberties don't kill thousands of people every year. I mean you never hear "my friend and I were walking around downtown last night when a thug pulled-out his right to petition with an illegal freedom of assembly mod and killed my friend" now try that sentence with a tec-9 replacing the phrase "right to petition" and silencer replacing "freedom of assembly".

Well, if you are complaining about sources, accuracy, etc, then you should know that Tec 9's are illegal, there is no such thing as a "Silencer" (it's a suppressor) and there have been no cases where a suppressed weapon has been used in a crime.

"Hyperbole, thy name is man..."

I don't think there are any motivations in helping Rush Limbaugh out specifically.
The ACLU takes on the high profile cases that have the potential to decide decisions for many smaller cases around the nation. This one case, if they win will cast a wide net for many other people who are having the same problem. The ACLU can't take every case so they take the specialty ones and the high profiles because there is more bang for your buck there.

This thread is frustrating. Both (or more accurately, all) sides of this argument seem to be missing some very important points, and perhaps a bit of the big picture:


The ACLU, while flawed, mostly does the right thing. Like any large and old organization, there are politics and personal agendas that get in the way. But mostly, they fight the good fight.

Rush Limbaugh does not necessarily believe anything he says or writes in his media spewing. His only consistent agenda (indeed, the agenda of all "hot talk" broadcasters) is to get as many people to pay attention to him as possible. Maybe he does believe what he says, but I suspect not: he is a smart man, and his purported politics share some ground with the ACLU - controlling the size and power of the state. He has simply never mentioned this; indeed he has pretty much stated the opposite. Hypocrite or huckster? I'll go with the latter.

BTW - I am a newbie, and I really like the quality of the thought behind these posts. I'm glad to be here.

Welcome to the boards, Candide :D

The ACLU's motivations are obvious.

First, it IS an issue for them, the ACLU believes in a right to privacy (which isn't a right by the constitution), so this case does fit their agenda there.

Second, its Rush. This gives them a high profile case where they can claim the high road they haven't seen since they defended the Illinois Nazi's (I hate Illinois Nazi's). Everyone knows Rush doesn't like the ACLU so now they can pretend to be above the issue.

Third, the ACLU had taken it on the chin lately for being to liberal. This is something they can' point to as a big 'no we arn't' even though its one case, and not really a liberal/conservative issue.

Now to me this has nothing to do with privacy but confidentiality. There is a difference.

The day the ACLU defends someones right to own a firearm I’ll rethink my opinion of them.

Regardless, the point that civil liberties don't kill people and guns do is a rather large difference.

This should not be surprising... The ACLU has always been a non-profit, non-partisan organization fighting "civil liberties violations wherever and whenever they occur." In the past, they have also defended Sean Hannity and Jerry Falwell.

The suprising part (or not really) is how fast Rush changed his tune once it was affecting him. He sounds like he is saying "No one has a right to privacy, except me of course"

It seems like the only thing left for rush to do is convert to islam and start speaking out against the "man" and his racist institutions. Seems consistent with his level of integrity.

I don't see how Limbaughs head keeps from just exploding on his shoulders.

First the man says:
Then he says:
Now he says:
I don't see how our constitution changed in those scant months. I guess when it was young women getting abortions, and being videotaped and harassed over it, it wasn't important. But when it comes to his medical records which would help put him in jail for most of what remains of his natural life, the right is important and needs to be a factor.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4037128/

Ten felony charges. Geez.

“The public is better served by treating addicts as patients rather than criminals.”
I guess Mr. Black doesn't subscrible to Rush's political views. Amazing Rush would go along with it.....

“This proposed resolution is offered as an alternative to unsealing your client’s medical records and in an effort to bring this case to a swift and just resolution,” Martz wrote.

It's disturbing that the prosecutor is using the release of private medical records as a bargaining chip and that he chooses to share communications between the two sides with the public.

Further, "supporting 10 felony counts" is far from gaining convictions on them. Seems to just be more evidence that this case is being brought for reasons other than the public good. Is Rush really a threat to the public for doctor shopping? Probation, random drug checks, and treatment would probably be more than acceptable for another less prominent person with no other criminal record facing the same charges.

Nope, distributor volumes carry mandatory prison sentencing.

Huh? They still haven't proved the case. Bringing charges is far from getting a conviction. And, as far as I know, they didn't catch him with all the pills did they?

I assume that will be one of the charges as that is the one that has been discussed about most.
They do have proof of distributor volumes. I saw documents made available on The Smoking Gun showing the extreme events he went to for doctor shopping. Dozens of the same prescription in one month. Several hundred pills a prescription easily puts him up to the dealer volumes. Plus testimony from the various people such as his maid, and pharmacists and any of his dealers that they may be able to track down.

It still doesn't put him in material possession of the drugs and it doesn't guarantee a conviction.

But anyway, what about the fact that the prosecutor is using the release of medical records as an implied threat? Or that he's publicizing communications between lawyers? It certainly seems to go beyond the bounds of a "normal" case.

I think that's wrong and I hope he and the ACLU beat that back.

See, if we argue long enough, we can find common ground. :)

I honestly have no problem with Rush going to jail if that's the norm for the crime(s) he's convicted of. The only thing that has bothered me from the beginning about this is that the case seemed beyond the "norms" of prosecution.

Does anyone actually listen to Rush Limbaugh?