How do you know he's guilty?

I love the irony of a guy who's spent his career decrying liberal judges who throw out criminal cases based on procedural technicalities now hiding behind the same...

Bartman

OJ hasn't just fallen off the turnip truck.

I'm not defending him, I just wonder where oj's info is coming from. oj, care to enlighten me?

If the prosecutor broke state law in seizing Rush's medical records, he is just as guilty and should be removed. That's the law. If Rush is guilty, he will most likely be convicted, unless the state overreached.

Ah, brave post-modern world, where the only crime is hyprocracy.

Even if Limbaugh is guilty, that doesn't make it okay for the prosecutor to circumvent the law. They might have had a case against them if they hadn't been so over-zealous.

Or maybe they knew they didn't have much of a case and needed to take sensational steps to get the press.

Either way, I'm not in favor of excusing the government's abuses just because they were going after an addict.

Isn't there a little girl (or hundreds) still missing from the Florda child welfare system they could be looking for? How 'bout spending the money on that?

Not only is the only crime hypocrisy, but you can immunize yourself against any charges by never setting any standards for yourself. If you can never be held accountable for anything, you can't be a hypocrite. Only fallable people with standards can be hypocrites,

if you never set any standards for yourself, you are immune because you can never be held accountable for anything.

Ignore previous post, hit the wrong button. D'oh.

Not only is the only crime hypocrisy, but you can immunize yourself against any charges by never setting any standards for yourself. If you can never be held accountable for anything, you can't be a hypocrite. Only fallible people with standards can be hypocrites.

bartman:

If he weren't guilty he'd have no need to hide evidence.

Orrin:

I don't think hat really is the best opening line for a committed anti-statist who struggles to protect the individual against state power. Don't you think a lot of DA's would love to pot him for career or political reasons? Isn't a better argument that the law should stop treating the criminal justice system as if it were a chess game and enact general, substantive laws based on what it should be--the protection of society. You can't ask an accused person to only take advantage of laws and arguments he agrees with philosophically.

Limbaugh's public credibility is an important factor, but not really related to his lawyer's efforts. And there is only so far you can take that. Is he supposed to start singing "The policeman is my friend." just because he believes in law and order?

Raoul:

Very well said.

OJ - Please post your entire medical records and last five years tax returns on line for the curious to review and comment upon. I assume you have not objection since otherwise we would have to assume that you have something to hide and should be convicted of a crime for engaging in a coverup of "evidence".

In the age of "erectile dysfunction" a lot of men have something to hide.

The prosecutor's office has already shown an enthusiasm for leaking false or confidential info. I don't think anyone would just stand by and let them have all their records.

George:

I was treated once for gout.

Peter -- Orrin is not a committed anti-statist. He's a statist who's out-of-power. There's a distinct difference.

As for Rush, they didn't pick him at random or even just for his politics. He announced on the radio that he was addicted to prescription pain killers and his supplier/employee narced him out. There's certainly grounds to investigate.

Now, Rush Limbaugh is just as entitled as any junkie to the benefits of the exclusionary rule, but let's not pretend that letting a guilty man go free is some great triumph for privacy rights.

From Mr. Limbaugh's Reply Brief:

[....]
Just two years ago, in State v. Langsford, 816 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), this Court considered the same argument the state advances here – and flatly rejected it. “[T]he limiting language in article I, section 12 does not prohibit the legislature from passing statutes which give Florida citizens greater protections than the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 139. A statutory scheme in Florida that imposes “higher standards for police conduct than those required by the Fourth Amendment” is “entirely permissible as a matter of state law,” and the state’s failure to comply with the statute requires suppression. Id. Even though Langsford originated from the same Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office that is a party here, Langsford is not even mentioned in the state’s Response.

NKR:

No one with something to hide...

OJ:

Remember your Holmes: "The right to be left alone". Rush is a lighting rod, and while he certainly may be guilty, without a subpoeana, he is most certainly being harassed by the Palm Beach County D.A.

jim:

I approve of the police harassing drug addicts and criminals, even if they're rich and white.

"I was treated once for gout."

Given the recipes you post, that is just about certain. :)

Bruce:

My studies show that gout is an evolutionary trait that we inherited from the great auk.

jim:

But the evidence should be admissible.

Why the heck do we insist on using criminal means to address a health problem?

Because he engaged in criminal behavior?

OJ:

That is a tautological response. His behavior stemmed from a health problem. So why not treat the disease, rather than criminalize?

Did his behavior hurt anyone other than himself?

Jeff:

Is any behAVIOR EVER WRONG in your book?

OJ:

Behavior that is wrong will exact its own cost. It clearly was exacting a cost from Mr. Limbaugh.

I'm trying to distinguish between that which is best addressed by treating the disease, and that which requires the criminal justice system.

Doc shopping was a symptom of an underlying disease, a symptom which, to all appearances, hurt no one other than himself.

Treat it, therefore, as a health problem.

On the other hand, if his drug addiction had led him to drive under the influence, and put others at risk, then by all means let run the dogs of criminal justice.

"other than himself" pretty much sums up the difference between Christianity and atheism as regards public policy.

OJ:

No--it asks the question as to which is the best tool to deal with the problem at hand.

Criminalizing doctor shopping drives the symptom underground, but does nothing about the underlying problem.

"Other than himself" does, however, provide a means to keep an overweening, nanny statist government at bay.

Were you raised by wolves or did someone nanny you?

Someone nannied me.

It wasn't the state, though.