U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Anna Nicole Case

[BetteDavisEyes]

You have got to be kidding me.

Supreme Court to Hear Anna Nicole Case

[winnieb]

Call me crazy, but I am guessing there are some bigger issues the Supreme Court could be hearing.

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by winnieb
Call me crazy, but I am guessing there are some bigger issues the Supreme Court could be hearing.

Here is the issue:

At issue for the court is a relatively mundane technical issue: when may federal courts hear claims that are also involved state probate proceedings.

I can't say that Anna Nicole has anything to do with the decision to hear the case. I'm sure my old pal Antonin would say that it says nothing about fake boobs in the Constitution.

[James]

I never followed much about the case.

These are my general thoughts: IF a 90 year old man wants to leave his money to his pet fish . . its his money and should be allowed to do so. I don't care if he is mentally incompetent even . . its his money not his kids. . thye can go make their own the little parasites.

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by James
I never followed much about the case.

These are my general thoughts: IF a 90 year old man wants to leave his money to his pet fish . . its his money and should be allowed to do so. I don't care if he is mentally incompetent even . . its his money not his kids. . thye can go make their own the little parasites.

That's not the issue before the Supreme Court.

I will, however, disagree with you. If you're mentally incompetent, the law should protect you from being taken advantage of by someone.

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by valkyrie
Here is the issue:

At issue for the court is a relatively mundane technical issue: when may federal courts hear claims that are also involved state probate proceedings.

I can't say that Anna Nicole has anything to do with the decision to hear the case. I'm sure my old pal Antonin would say that it says nothing about fake boobs in the Constitution.

Trust me, the Supreme Court hears a small fraction of the cases that people want it to hear. A few years ago, the Court was receiving about 6,000 petitions a year -- they grant review and hear arguments in about 100 of those. (That's 1.6%.) And that's keeping it mind that it only takes 4 of the Justices voting to hear a case for review to be granted. To say they are extremely selective would be a gross understatement.

Nor can I imagine that they would grant review just because of the "celebrity" involved.

Four of the Justices must have thought the issue presented, as noted above, was significant enough in terms of federalism and/or the jurisdiction of the federal courts for review to be granted.