NationStates Jolt Archive

White House Aids Playboy Playmate in Court (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051226035009990003&ncid=NWS00010000000001)

:rolleyes:

Well, you voted for this kind of bullshit twice, don't bitch about it to us.

White House Aids Playboy Playmate in Court (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051226035009990003&ncid=NWS00010000000001)

:rolleyes:

Well, you voted for this kind of bullshit twice, don't bitch about it to us.

If you had taken the time to read the article or listen to the news, you would know why the Feds want to argue this in the Supreme Court.

The reason is: "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."

It has do with; "when may federal courts hear claims that involve state probate proceedings."

However, I suspect you don't care about the details and are just trying to start another Bush bashing flame war. However, I could be wrong.

If you had taken the time to read the article or listen to the news, you would know why the Feds want to argue this in the Supreme Court.

The reason is: "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."

It has do with; "when may federal courts hear claims that involve state probate proceedings."

However, I suspect you don't care about the details and are just trying to start another Bush bashing flame war. However, I could be wrong.

Even technicalities won't cover ulterior motives. If the plaintiff had been a middle class woman instead of Anna-Nichole Smith, do you think the Bush lawyers would have looked at this, much less help file a briefing?

whats your problem with it?

Updated: 01:49 PM EST
White House Aids Playmate in High Court Case
By GINA HOLLAND, AP

WASHINGTON (Dec. 26) - 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.

Smith, a television reality star and native Texan, plans to attend the court argument.

She is trying to collect millions of dollars from the estate of J. Howard Marshall II, the oil tycoon she married in 1994 when he was 89 and she was a 26-year-old topless dancer in Houston. Marshall died in 1995.

Like Marshall, President Bush was a Texas oil man. Both attended Yale. Both held government positions in Washington.

There are differences. Marshall had a penchant for strippers, and the court record before the justices is one of poverty, greed, sex and family rivalry.

A federal bankruptcy judge sided with Smith in the fight over her late husband's estate, awarding her $474 million. That was reduced to about $89 million by a federal district judge, then thrown out altogether by a federal appeals court.

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.

Filings are due next month by groups backing E. Pierce Mars


im sure that the feds have some reason to think that they can consolidate power if they can just get the OK for federal court to mess with state probate decisions.

or do you think that a person should have to pass some kind of worthiness test before their case can go to the supreme court?

Before another flame war starts, I'm gonna say for everyone to drop this. Arguing over crap like this is senseless. Let's all go home and find something better to debate.

Even technicalities won't cover ulterior motives. If the plaintiff had been a middle class woman instead of Anna-Nichole Smith, do you think the Bush lawyers would have looked at this, much less help file a briefing?

what in the world difference do you think it makes that its ann nicole smith??

whats your problem with it?

im sure that the feds have some reason to think that they can consolidate power if they can just get the OK for federal court to mess with state probate decisions.

or do you think that a person should have to pass some kind of worthiness test before their case can go to the supreme court?

Consolidating Federal Power. Doesn't that sound like Bigger Government? And while there might be one or two cases in history but I have trouble recalling when the Supreme Court ever held a case on purely financial matters. Getting the Supreme Court to preside over whether or not Anna-Nichole Smith can get the money she grubbed off of Paw Paw sounds like a waste of federal authority to me personally.

what in the world difference do you think it makes that its ann nicole smith??

If you live in a country where celebrity status and wealth doesn't get you preferential treatment and faster results, let me know so I can visit that utopian society.

Even technicalities won't cover ulterior motives. If the plaintiff had been a middle class woman instead of Anna-Nichole Smith, do you think the Bush lawyers would have looked at this, much less help file a briefing?

A middle class woman would not be fighting her step son over a multimillion dollar estate. I think you hate Bush so much you fail to see the real issues involved in the case. I feel sorry for anyone who hates someone so much they wear blinders.

Ah, Gauthier! You never cease to amuse! :D

Even technicalities won't cover ulterior motives.

What ulterior motives?

Ah, Gauthier! You never cease to amuse! :D

Yes, but you rant so much better.

Before another flame war starts, I'm gonna say for everyone to drop this. Arguing over crap like this is senseless. Let's all go home and find something better to debate.

What did you do for Christmas? My wife was out of town because her dad is sick so a friend and I went the buffet at the casino. Has a fantastic dinner before hitting the slot machines. I lost $19.64. :( My friend lost about $20.00. :( We had a good time though.

Hey, we don't even have to debate a thread like that. You want to start it?

Consolidating Federal Power. Doesn't that sound like Bigger Government? And while there might be one or two cases in history but I have trouble recalling when the Supreme Court ever held a case on purely financial matters. Getting the Supreme Court to preside over whether or not Anna-Nichole Smith can get the money she grubbed off of Paw Paw sounds like a waste of federal authority to me personally.
now youre just grasping at straws because no one jumped on the notion that its wrong to support such an "immoral" woman

the case was going to the supreme court without the whitehouse putting in a brief. they didnt get it put on the calendar. they are just (perhaps) thinking that there may be something to their advantage in it

the supreme court isnt going to rule in her favor because they are starry eyed over either HER or the white house brief. they are going to decide it based on their understanding of the constitution.

its not immoral to run things past the supreme court to see of they are constitutional. its wrong when you DONT do that

now youre just grasping at straws because no one jumped on the notion that its wrong to support such an "immoral" woman

the case was going to the supreme court without the whitehouse putting in a brief. they didnt get it put on the calendar. they are just (perhaps) thinking that there may be something to their advantage in it

the supreme court isnt going to rule in her favor because they are starry eyed over either HER or the white house brief. they are going to decide it based on their understanding of the constitution.

its not immoral to run things past the supreme court to see of they are constitutional. its wrong when you DONT do that

I don't like Bush because he's an incompetent fratboy who's gotten all sorts of preferential treatment and welfare handouts all his life despite his failures. And when he's practically been put into the White House under a campaign image of Moral Authority, it smacks of hypocrisy and ulterior motive when his administration decides help someone which a blatantly scandalous and questionable history like Anna-Nichole Smith.

It may be a legitmate issue to file a Supreme Court case on, but the Court has historically screwed up its institutional impartiality now and then (Dred Scott, 2000 Election) and I'm not visionary enough to see how far the implications of a decision in this case would go. However I feel it might involve the possibility of the federal government deciding to meddle into inheritance disputes. And do you want your inheritance decided upon by the same people running the IRS as it is now?

I overreact because I love the country too much to let Bush use it as a blank check.

Yes, but you rant so much better.
LOL! True, true. [ offers to give Gauthier ranting lessons! ] :D

I don't like Bush because he's an incompetent fratboy who's gotten all sorts of preferential treatment and welfare handouts all his life despite his failures. And when he's practically been put into the White House under a campaign image of Moral Authority, it smacks of hypocrisy and ulterior motive when his administration decides help someone which a blatantly scandalous and questionable history like Anna-Nichole Smith.

It may be a legitmate issue to file a Supreme Court case on, but the Court has historically screwed up its institutional impartiality now and then (Dred Scott, 2000 Election) and I'm not visionary enough to see how far the implications of a decision in this case would go. However I feel it might involve the possibility of the federal government deciding to meddle into inheritance disputes. And do you want your inheritance decided upon by the same people running the IRS as it is now?

I overreact because I love the country too much to let Bush use it as a blank check.

there are plenty of things to diss bush over, this isnt one of them.

The Bush Administration and the Attorney General's office might have some interest in this case because it concerns the issue of Judicial Review. This case might just be reversed to prove the point that a federal court can overturn a state probate court. The fact it is a high-profile case could be used to raise it to the level of a political issue. If this is in fact the motive then this is the latest case in America's oldest political issue: federalism. If the Supreme Court fails to show some power over state probate court then it weakens its own power. It gives some greater sense of self-determination of the state autonmously from the federal government. I'm probably making a bigger issue out of some golderdigger crying foul than it really is, but I'm a Jeffersonite; this issue raises an interesting point in Anti-Federalism: is it more important that the state government decide this issue or is the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, in someones final wishes?

Perhaps the old fart's moneygrubbing relatives can explain why they didn't stop him from marrying Anna Nicole Smith in the first place, rather than indulging in this shit?

White House Aids Playboy Playmate in Court (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051226035009990003&ncid=NWS00010000000001)

:rolleyes:

Well, you voted for this kind of bullshit twice, don't bitch about it to us.

never have never will

Perhaps the old fart's moneygrubbing relatives can explain why they didn't stop him from marrying Anna Nicole Smith in the first place, rather than indulging in this shit?
now THATS a more interesting thing to talk about.

the old man got what he paid for, the kids are just upset that it cut way too deep into the pile of money they expected to get when he died.

now THATS a more interesting thing to talk about.

the old man got what he paid for, the kids are just upset that it cut way too deep into the pile of money they expected to get when he died.
Precisely. Anybody who thinks she didn't earn the money has never seen an octagenarian's penis.

I don't like Bush because he's an incompetent fratboy who's gotten all sorts of preferential treatment and welfare handouts all his life despite his failures. And when he's practically been put into the White House under a campaign image of Moral Authority, it smacks of hypocrisy and ulterior motive when his administration decides help someone which a blatantly scandalous and questionable history like Anna-Nichole Smith.

In this case, you just pwned yourself.

Obviously, their concern for the judicial system overshadows their moral concerns with Anna-Nichole Smith. I guess you can no longer make the claim that their subjective Christian moralities are what is leading the nation.

Precisely. Anybody who thinks she didn't earn the money has never seen an octagenarian's penis.
ewwww and i hope not to until im 73!! (the husband is 7 years older than i am)

the visible parts of him were disgusting enough that im convinced she earned every penny

Precisely. Anybody who thinks she didn't earn the money has never seen an octagenarian's penis.
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/4851/smileytroutsmack3qu.gif (http://imageshack.us)

ewwww and i hope not to until im 73!! (the husband is 7 years older than i am)

the visible parts of him were disgusting enough that im convinced she earned every penny
Damn right.

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/4851/smileytroutsmack3qu.gif (http://imageshack.us)
Anyone who clicks on that deserves a lot worse, to be honest.

Precisely. Anybody who thinks she didn't earn the money has never seen an octagenarian's penis.
Well, Bob bless the internet for that!!! :eek: