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?

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.

Well said, Rand. Well said.

I like Rush, but, excellent point.

I 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."

Without 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.

Without 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.

From 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.

The "constitutional right to privacy" that Rush's lawyer is referring to is found in the Florida state constitution, Article I, Section 23:
"Right of privacy.--Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into his private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law."

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!

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.

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.

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.

I'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.

Well, 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.

This 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.

I've expressed no opinion as to whether or not Rush should take advantage of it. I asked what I asked.

Yes, 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.