White House Aids Playboy Playmate in Court

Dec 26, 2005

WASHINGTON - Playboy playmate Anna Nicole Smith has an unusual bedfellow in the Supreme Court fight over her late husband's fortune: the Bush administration.

The administration's top Supreme Court lawyer filed arguments on Smith's behalf and wants to take part when the case is argued before the justices.

The court will decide early next year whether to let the U.S. solicitor general share time with Smith's attorney during the one hour argument on Feb. 28.

<snip>

The issue before the high court is one only lawyers would love: when may federal courts hear claims that involve state probate proceedings. Smith lost in Texas state courts, which found that E. Pierce Marshall was the sole heir to his father's estate.

The Bush administration's filings in the case are technical. Without getting into the details of the family squabble, Solicitor General Paul Clement said that the justices should protect federal court jurisdiction in disputes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051226/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_playmate_s_battle;_ylt=A9FJqZ4jzq9DbhYBwRes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--


So much for states' rights I suppose?

they would vilify him and call him a pervert. Hypocrites.

I'll bet she has been giving plenty of Marshall's money to repuke candidates.

get Anna to give gw a blowjob in the Oval Office and then we can get this impeachment thing rolling.

drugged up enough that she'd blow Francis the Talking Mule if he asked her to.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Don't forget her attendance at a big Republican fundraiser, along with a big porn producer.

I had forgotten about that.

:spank:

Anyone count how many times he said that in 2000?

I must say this White House certainly keeps its eye on the ball at all times.

...and, as usual, drag the debate and all the MSM down with them.

Well, at least Ginsburg and O'Connor (and that justice who's rumored to be gay... can't remember which one it is at the moment) are still around to do CPR in case Antonin or Clarence get the vapors.

I have a funny feeling states rights is going to have trouble competing.

Anna Nicole Smith aside, there is a serious legal question here. Smith's husband had a legal will that was verified which left her everything. Her husband's son had that overturned. A similar situation happened to friends of mine and it is still tied up in probate court.

Her husband's VERY rich crybaby son can just get over it. It is legally hers, and by all accounts she was an exemplary wife to her husband (not that that should be part of the legal issue).

And, I take offense at the word "gold digger" here. Not only is it sexist, but ANS was NOT a gold digger in the sense of the word. She and her husband knew what the marriage was: he wanted a young woman to be nice to him, and she wanted security. No malicious or tawdry intent by either party -- just honesty.

People have a huge misconception on what Anna Nicole got. She got ONE HALF of the INCOME ONLY during the term of the marriage.

This guy's fortune was so frigging huge, she was going to get around $100,000,000, and that was only half of his income from investments for a two-year period.

The greedy bastard son gets a billion or so, he gets the entire fortune. She only got ONE HALF WHAT HE EARNED ON THE FORTUNE, for only two years.

Yet the greedy bastard is taking it to the Supreme Court to make sure she gets nothing.

Money like that, noone has a right to, she did more to earn than just be born.

But it's an apt description. Would she have married a guy his age if he wasn't wealthy? I think not.

ruled against her. If it was all so cut and dry, why did the court ruled against her? Maybe it's cause her husband DID NOT include her in his will?

the rich son had the judge in his pocket.

The son is the sole heir.

did he lure her into marriage with a promise of wealth only to screw her over in the end? And if so, should he be allowed to get away with it?

If he didn't want to give it to her then she doesn't get it. She didn't have to marry the old guy.

I'm not trying to take anyone's side here...My personal feeling is there are a number of really scummy rich people vying for money that none of them need much less deserve.

Too bad they can't take the entire inheritance and use it to help people who've lost jobs and homes through no fault of their own.

Anybody can show up and tell he promised to leave them all his money. How are you going to prove he said anything of the sort?

And as a previous poster pointed out, she was seeking half his income for the two years they were married...NOT half his entire income, not heirlooms handed down for generations that should remain with his descendants.

promised to her, but she is not in his will.

they are so quick with that but don't call the husband who pursued her a dirty old man?!?:mad:

It's more like taking advantage of the elderly.

The posts in this thread are as silly as they come. The reason that the government is filing a brief and seeking time to argue in this case has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that one of the litigants in anna nicole smith. Its because the case raises thorny questions of the interrelationship of state probate law, federal law, and bankruptcy. It wouldn't matter who was president or who the parties were to the case -- the Solicitor General would be filing a brief in this case regardless.

onenote

People in this thread are rightfully pointing out the hypocrisy of this nazi administration that keeps claiming that they're more moral than everyone else.

Doesn't change the facts. This administration does enough shit not to have to pretend outrage at something that doesn't warrant it. IMO it just undermines our valid outrage when we get all goofy about something like this.

onenote

Do people have a right to leave THEIR money to whomever they want, especially when that person was their LEGAL spouse.

She is not mentioned in her husband's will. The son is the sole beneficiary. So, why should she get the money?
"Marshall died just 14 months later, and his son, E. Pierce Marshall, was named sole beneficiary. Smith wasn’t even mentioned in her husband’s will. Pierce (who was twice his stepmother's age at the time, 56 to 28), said that his father had disinherited Smith because she'd seemed more interested in shopping than fulfilling her wifely duties."
http://www.nndb.com/people/512/000023443/

I'm just suspicious of anything that this administration does. That is one of the problems with their wide spread corruption. Even if they are doing something right, a lot of us don't trust the bastards and look for the worst possible explanation.

:eyes:

From Wikipedia:

Although her late husband was, according to his employees, crazy about her, he did not include her in his trust and will, which he updated weeks after their marriage. Smith claimed J. Howard verbally promised her half of his estate if she married him.

he didn't have to marry her, she was his wife, will or no will, she is the surviving spouse

if my husband dies and i find out upon reading the will that he left all his money to someone else, that's too bad for the someone else, because i'm still getting the money

guess at least i have one reason to be glad i live in louisiana

parents were not allowed to leave their money to their children.

Looks like they're trying to fill their docket with nice "busy work", and this administration is trying to solidify their efforts in "keeping busy"... Sheesh!

like most repukes, they probably haven't had it for years. Viagra all around! :evilgrin:

could be made into another MTV reality show.

SCOTUS and Anna Nicole - Live, Part II (Show me the money!).!:popcorn:

with all the bankruptcy filings and probate cases throughout the years, why this has never come up before. How is it that this is the case that goes to the Supreme Court, and how is it that this is the case that the US Justice Department chooses to intervene?

That story said "bankruptcy judge". Am I to understand that Smith filed for bankruptcy and is somehow claiming this money through the bankruptcy proceeding?

you can not argue for the sanctity of marriage and then stand by idle when another greedy family member disinherits the WIFE of the deceased

the ruling in texas was wrong, there is no point to marriage if it is not to provide for the surviving spouse

whatever you may think of smith or the stupid old coot she married, he did marry her, legally, that makes her the surviving spouse & the money should have been hers

no use fighting for marriage rights if they aren't worth a damn at the convenience of the elite

How long were he and Anna married for? Less than two years. His son was over fifty, so his father knew him a lot longer than Anna was even alive for.
Any of you who babble on about sanctity of marriage wouldn't be happy if your elderly rich father married a young stripper. Doesn't a person have a right to leave money to his/her children?

yeah right

sorry, you are not allowed to disinherit your children under age 25 in louisiana but after that, yeah, you have to take care of the spouse, who realistically, does not have as many years ahead of her to earn a living as the children do

texas is crazy and people who want to tie up the courts w. these cases instead of just blanket protecting the spouse of the deceased are crazy

forgive me, mods, but true is true

the son is old enough to get off his ass and make a living, the wife as a woman has only a few years where she can earn real money esp. if her income came from being a freakin MODEL

she's old and ugly now and she's what 30? it's different for women

the son should be a man and get a real job

is that she has less years ahead of her to make a living? And that is ridiculous to suggest that a woman can only earn a living until she is what -30? How freaking ridiculous is that?

they will be getting a $$$cut$$$ if Anna wins this one.
Just another fucking sick bribe! :sarcasm:

Should have put some porn queens down in NO during Katrina...aid would come rushing in.