Florida Supreme Court rules against Limbaugh
And it makes me nervous.
Yesterday, by a 4-3 vote, the Florida Supreme Court said that it would not consider an appeal from Rush Limbaugh over the prosecution's seizure of his medical records during the investigation of whether Limbaugh illegally purchased certain drugs.
I'm sure this has many liberals jumping up and down and cheering, but not this one. Limbaugh's appeal was filed by the Florida ACLU, who argued that the talk show host's privacy rights had been violated. It was deliciously satisfying to see ACLU-basher Limbaugh suddenly realize why the organization exists, and it is scary to hear of the state Supreme Court decision. This sets a precedent that I do not like at all.
Yesterday, by a 4-3 vote, the Florida Supreme Court said that it would not consider an appeal from Rush Limbaugh over the prosecution's seizure of his medical records during the investigation of whether Limbaugh illegally purchased certain drugs.
I'm sure this has many liberals jumping up and down and cheering, but not this one. Limbaugh's appeal was filed by the Florida ACLU, who argued that the talk show host's privacy rights had been violated. It was deliciously satisfying to see ACLU-basher Limbaugh suddenly realize why the organization exists, and it is scary to hear of the state Supreme Court decision. This sets a precedent that I do not like at all.
posted by Diane at 11:15 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
For what it's worth, a denial of review has no precedential value, meaning that the lower court's decision is still precedent by the Supreme Court of Florida could still go either way. It's an odd decision because, whatever one's view of the merits, it would seem like an issue that should be resolved definitively by the state's high court. If there were political factors at work, they are hard to discern, as there are both Bush and Chiles appointees on both sides of the decision.
By
Fred Vincy, at
2:03 PM
Thanks for posting, Fred. Every aspect of this case has been puzzling.
By
Diane, at
2:23 PM
D.E.D., I'm with you on this one. I would love to wish on R*sh all the punitive humiliation he advocates for anyone not on his side, but I'm not wishing anything on him that screws the rest of us. Dang.
I do wonder if it struck him as at all ironic that the ACLU defended his interests, or if he is just blind to anything that doesn't immediately bring him some sad acclaim and ridiculous amounts of money. I guess I'm wondering if he believes the obviously idiotic and unsupportable stuff he says, or if he is lowest of the low, crass opportunist I suspect he is. Anyhoo, f*ck him, but not this way.
By
ae, at
5:41 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home