When are you dittoheads going to wake up?

[HomerJS]

Another Rush Limbaugh moment of hypocrisy...

Aug 2003 from radio show "there is no constitutional right to privacy"

Current defense against charge of doctor shopping is the authorities taking his mediacl records violates his "right to privacy".

Guess that stuff y'all hear on the radio means nothing if your chubby butt is in the sling.

Props to Keith Oberman on todays MSNBC Countdown

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Another Rush Limbaugh moment of hypocrisy...

Aug 2003 from radio show "there is no constitutional right to privacy"

Current defense against charge of doctor shopping is the authorities taking his mediacl records violates his "right to privacy".

Guess that stuff y'all hear on the radio means nothing if your chubby butt is in the sling.

Props to Keith Oberman on todays MSNBC Countdown

Actually there are current laws that PROTECT doctor/Patient relationships. Same for lawyer/client, priest/follower.

While these may not be "constitutional" they ARE LAW. They reason they are there is in order for a doctor/lawyer/preist to do their job they cannot have "Part of the story".

 

[glenn1]

Another Rush Limbaugh moment of hypocrisy...

Aug 2003 from radio show "there is no constitutional right to privacy"

Current defense against charge of doctor shopping is the authorities taking his mediacl records violates his "right to privacy".

He was correct in August, whether he cites the concept now in his defense or not. There is no explicit "right to privacy" to be found in the constitution, although by tradition, USSC rulings, and temperment it does seem to be be an "implied right" of the Constitution.

Here's a link to a good explanation of what i just stated.... privacy

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So people are saying the police cannot subpoena medical records anymore based on a right to privacy? When did that happen?

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So people are saying the police cannot subpoena medical records anymore based on a right to privacy? When did that happen?

There is a doctor patient confidence that must be waived.

You tell your doctor that you got bit by a big dog.

You are arrested and have scars from said bite.

House broken into has big dog and you are a suspect.

doctor cannot testify as to the time and or nature of the scars with patient waiving his rights.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So people are saying the police cannot subpoena medical records anymore based on a right to privacy? When did that happen?

There is a doctor patient confidence that must be waived.

You tell your doctor that you got bit by a big dog.

You are arrested and have scars from said bite.

House broken into has big dog and you are a suspect.

doctor cannot testify as to the time and or nature of the scars with patient waiving his rights.

Can now, can just declare your actions as Domestic Terrorism, whip out Patriot Act and BAM, doctor has to tell everything.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So people are saying the police cannot subpoena medical records anymore based on a right to privacy? When did that happen?

There is a doctor patient confidence that must be waived.

You tell your doctor that you got bit by a big dog.

You are arrested and have scars from said bite.

House broken into has big dog and you are a suspect.

doctor cannot testify as to the time and or nature of the scars with patient waiving his rights.

Can now, can just declare your actions as Domestic Terrorism, whip out Patriot Act and BAM, doctor has to tell everything.

But you would need to prove that those actions WERE infact domestic terrorism.

I suspect you of stealing radios, I get a warrent, I discover that you have in your house a program downloading illegal music and uploading it as well. You are guilty of copywrite infringement and while I have seen it the rules of discovery on a properly written warrent will not allow me to use that against you without getting another warrent, which any cop copuld get in a matter of minutes.

Warrents are given for specific searches and the patriot act is no different.

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Another Rush Limbaugh moment of hypocrisy...

Aug 2003 from radio show "there is no constitutional right to privacy"

Current defense against charge of doctor shopping is the authorities taking his mediacl records violates his "right to privacy".

Guess that stuff y'all hear on the radio means nothing if your chubby butt is in the sling.

Props to Keith Oberman on todays MSNBC Countdown

Actually there are current laws that PROTECT doctor/Patient relationships. Same for lawyer/client, priest/follower.

While these may not be "constitutional" they ARE LAW. They reason they are there is in order for a doctor/lawyer/preist to do their job they cannot have "Part of the story".

I do believe you cede this right to law enforcement in this example. That's why it's called an "investigation". My point how his real life is in direct opposition with the radio rhetoric.

BTW - What's with accepting help from the ACLU a group he constantly puts down. More 2x speak.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So people are saying the police cannot subpoena medical records anymore based on a right to privacy? When did that happen?

There is a doctor patient confidence that must be waived.

You tell your doctor that you got bit by a big dog.

You are arrested and have scars from said bite.

House broken into has big dog and you are a suspect.

doctor cannot testify as to the time and or nature of the scars with patient waiving his rights.

Can now, can just declare your actions as Domestic Terrorism, whip out Patriot Act and BAM, doctor has to tell everything.

But you would need to prove that those actions WERE infact domestic terrorism.

I suspect you of stealing radios, I get a warrent, I discover that you have in your house a program downloading illegal music and uploading it as well. You are guilty of copywrite infringement and while I have seen it the rules of discovery on a properly written warrent will not allow me to use that against you without getting another warrent, which any cop copuld get in a matter of minutes.

Warrents are given for specific searches and the patriot act is no different.

Crime can be made to look like domestic terrorism if people are too scared to leave their homes because of thugs on the street corner or people fearing for their safety because of guys breaking into houses in the middle of the night. "Terrorism" like Art is in the eye of the beholder IMHO with this administration.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Another Rush Limbaugh moment of hypocrisy...

Aug 2003 from radio show "there is no constitutional right to privacy"

Current defense against charge of doctor shopping is the authorities taking his mediacl records violates his "right to privacy".

Guess that stuff y'all hear on the radio means nothing if your chubby butt is in the sling.

Props to Keith Oberman on todays MSNBC Countdown

Actually there are current laws that PROTECT doctor/Patient relationships. Same for lawyer/client, priest/follower.

While these may not be "constitutional" they ARE LAW. They reason they are there is in order for a doctor/lawyer/preist to do their job they cannot have "Part of the story".

The right to privacy in laws are more to protect you against your employer then they are to protect you against law enforcement. You better believe that if the D.A. wants your medical files and can prove that it is in the interest of justice or public safety that a judge will sign a order instructing your doctor to hand them over. This is nothing new here, so yeah I guess Rush was right "there is no constitutional right to privacy" when it comes to protecting a defendant from the governments snooping into their personal lives or medical records in a criminal court case. Of course I bet he only thought that this applied to drug dealers, murders, rapist, or anyone who has been charged with a crime other then himself.


"In his book The Way Things Ought To Be, page 56 Jul 2, 1992, Rush Limbaugh wrote:

I agree with the view, best articulated by Judge Robert Bork, that there is no basis in the Constitution for the privacy right which was announced as the foundational basis for the constitutional right to abortion."

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/052549.htm

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Another Rush Limbaugh moment of hypocrisy...

Aug 2003 from radio show "there is no constitutional right to privacy"

Current defense against charge of doctor shopping is the authorities taking his mediacl records violates his "right to privacy".

Guess that stuff y'all hear on the radio means nothing if your chubby butt is in the sling.

Props to Keith Oberman on todays MSNBC Countdown

Looks like you need to do some more research before you create a post like this.