१ मार्च, २००६
The argument in the Anna Nicole Smith case.
Dahlia Lithwick tells us about the oral argument in the Anna Nicole Smith case. The legal issue in the case is awfully boring, and Smith, for her part, never does anything interesting in the courtroom, but Litwick does what she can to liven it up, making it seem as though the Justices, in pursuing the lawyers with questions, are rushing to the aid of the beautiful lady. It's still boring. The most amusing thing is something Scalia said that probably could be said somewhere in just about any oral argument: "Do you want to stand on that position or do you have a lesser position? One that might cause you to win?"
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८ टिप्पण्या:
1) Why do people keep calling it the "California bankruptcy court"? Is it because only a California bankruptcy court would do something so outrageous and rude as to question the might and correctness of a Texas state court? Bankruptcy court is a federal court. If it had been a Texas bankruptcy court, there would still be a jurisdictional question to be answered. I think it confuses the issue to call it a California court.
2) Everyone seems to have forgotten (well...) that Anna Nicole was the Guess Jeans model. Not that that's such a huge accomplishment, and it's not what she was doing when she met the rich geezer, but it's like she's become just an ex-stripper.
3) Why were the Justices interested in the question of forged will pages when that wasn't at issue? Will they send the case back to trial court or appeals court?
Lathwick sez: She has stepped into the only place in America where her breasts have no power.
Well, I don't know about that...Justice Stephen Breyer, for instance, is quick to hop up onto his white charger to defend Anna Nicole.
The Justices might not be able to see them, but they know they're there.
Ann, it occurs to me you're the Dahlia Lithwick of American Idol.
(pardon my very un-crisp comments above...i write better after a couple drinks.)
It would be darn hard not to ogle her, but professionals are professionals as they say and I have no doubt she will get a fair shake.
Offtopic, but then it is just post-Mardi Gras. You did quite a bit of Katrina blogging and in fact said that people were just blaming bush just to blame bush, and Bush isn't a wizard, just a frail human President.... Perhaps it is time for a follow-up on your part.
An unscientific CNN poll shows that the vast majority doesn't think we are any better prepared today. ABC shows that Bush was clearly warned about Katrina in no uncertain terms BEFORE Katrina hit. (Bush later lied saying no one could have imagined the levies failing) CBS reports that there are 1300 confirmed dead and nearly 2000 still missing (approaching 9/11 of course.). FEMA assistance is ending, unemployment benefits are ending, recovery is moving slower than expected, Congress and the White House wallow in finger-pointing while Gulf Coast recovery moves at an unacceptable pace
I know this is off-topic, but perhaps it's time for you to revisit your Katrina thoughts.
For some reason, this case reminds me of Phryne.
Not that I think her defense would work today.
Just when you mistakenly thought you had a topic that was Quxxo-proof, he strikes again.
Sigh. tjl, once again, if you would hit the paypal button and subscribe to Total*Ann, you would find you could ignore various posters, including SloanBot, SlipperyCheese, and Illudium Q36.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा