Her day in court
I'm really having fun imagining Anna Nicole Smith at the Supreme Court. Seems a bit of a culture clash, but every woman deserves her day in court.
Certainly the issue -- among other things -- is ripe: When may federal courts hear claims that involve state probate proceedings? Anna Nicole and her stepson are clashing over big bucks in former's deceased husband's rather abundant estate. This battle has been going on for the better part of the past decade.
Apparently the son is the only named heir in the most recent will, which was prepared prior to the deceased father's marriage to Anna Nicole, and the probate court awarded him the estate. Now, it's been a few years since I took wills and trusts, but I thought that under most state law, it's pretty straight-forward that the surviving spouse could challenge such a will and take half the estate, especially where the will pre-exists the marriage.
Sure, there are certainly concerns that she's a gold-digger. But isn't the larger policy concern to protect the surviving spouse generally? Not to mention to respect a person's will regarding his/her choice of spouse, whether we agree with that decision or not, whether we find it dignified or not? I mean, the state allowed them to get married, so the court has no place coming in now and making a value judgment on the marriage itself or suitability of the partners. That's a completely unwarranted intrusion, and it's no one's business but the partners to the marriage.
Of course, one could argue that the state must abide by the deceased's will, but see above policy concerns + the will was drafted prior to the marriage, so who knows what the deceased's most recent intent was? Heck, who would know better than a spouse? Why do we discount her more than we would someone else? Just because she comes across as trashy? On the face of things, the marriage may look like one not necessarily built on eternal love and devotion, but we cannot allow ourselves to be affected by our own private biases. It doesn't matter what we think of her. To the court, it only matters that her husband was competent when he decided to marry her and that the marriage is legal. And she should get anything that any legal spouse would get in the same situation. To do less is to undermine the legal sanctity of marriage and the dignity of each of the partners.
Hmm... Can you tell that I'm a little annoyed here because I think a lot of people are engaging in cultural discrimination? We think she's a gold-digger, ergo it's permissible to discriminate and accord her fewer legal protections. No. That just doesn't fly with me. We can think whatever we want; the court just can't make any legal decisions based on distaste.
Anyway...
That aside, one commentator did note: "I'd suspect some justices haven't the slightest idea who Anna Nicole is."
And I would guess the reverse is true too, that Anna Nicole isn't up on the names of the Justices either.
Certainly the issue -- among other things -- is ripe: When may federal courts hear claims that involve state probate proceedings? Anna Nicole and her stepson are clashing over big bucks in former's deceased husband's rather abundant estate. This battle has been going on for the better part of the past decade.
Apparently the son is the only named heir in the most recent will, which was prepared prior to the deceased father's marriage to Anna Nicole, and the probate court awarded him the estate. Now, it's been a few years since I took wills and trusts, but I thought that under most state law, it's pretty straight-forward that the surviving spouse could challenge such a will and take half the estate, especially where the will pre-exists the marriage.
Sure, there are certainly concerns that she's a gold-digger. But isn't the larger policy concern to protect the surviving spouse generally? Not to mention to respect a person's will regarding his/her choice of spouse, whether we agree with that decision or not, whether we find it dignified or not? I mean, the state allowed them to get married, so the court has no place coming in now and making a value judgment on the marriage itself or suitability of the partners. That's a completely unwarranted intrusion, and it's no one's business but the partners to the marriage.
Of course, one could argue that the state must abide by the deceased's will, but see above policy concerns + the will was drafted prior to the marriage, so who knows what the deceased's most recent intent was? Heck, who would know better than a spouse? Why do we discount her more than we would someone else? Just because she comes across as trashy? On the face of things, the marriage may look like one not necessarily built on eternal love and devotion, but we cannot allow ourselves to be affected by our own private biases. It doesn't matter what we think of her. To the court, it only matters that her husband was competent when he decided to marry her and that the marriage is legal. And she should get anything that any legal spouse would get in the same situation. To do less is to undermine the legal sanctity of marriage and the dignity of each of the partners.
Hmm... Can you tell that I'm a little annoyed here because I think a lot of people are engaging in cultural discrimination? We think she's a gold-digger, ergo it's permissible to discriminate and accord her fewer legal protections. No. That just doesn't fly with me. We can think whatever we want; the court just can't make any legal decisions based on distaste.
Anyway...
That aside, one commentator did note: "I'd suspect some justices haven't the slightest idea who Anna Nicole is."
And I would guess the reverse is true too, that Anna Nicole isn't up on the names of the Justices either.
<< Home