Tuesday, May 02, 2006

A Love Supreme

As the nation struggles with important constitutional issues like whether or not the president can brush aside 750 laws whenever he sees fit, whether or not he can spy on Americans without warrants or cause, and whether or not Stephen Colbert should be placed in Gitmo, we can all rest assured that the highest court in the land is focused on the really important matters:
Former Playmate of the Year Anna Nicole Smith won from the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday a new chance to collect millions of dollars she claims her late Texas oil tycoon husband promised her.

The justices unanimously overturned an appeals court ruling that the blond widow was entitled to nothing because federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear claims that are also involved in state probate hearings. The high court sent the case back to the federal appeals court in California for more proceedings in the long-running legal battle involving the former Playboy centerfold who also had her own reality television show.

Smith was 26 when she married oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall in 1994. He was 89. They met three years earlier when she was working as a topless dancer in Houston.
Please feel free to insert your own Clarence Thomas joke here.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

If she went reverse cowgirl, she earns his millions.

Otto Man said...

I don't care what the position was, if they consummated the deal, she's earned every penny. Look at the smile on that dude's face. I bet he thought it was worth it.

Plus, let's remember that in all likelihood, this guy's kids and grandkids are cut from the same noble cloth as Paris Hilton and the other trust fund babies. I'd rather see ANS with the cash, since she'll spend it on something hilariously tacky, like a walk-in humidor for her dog.

Smitty said...

It reminds me of that scene in Best of Show, where the "rich lady" who married the really old dude says:

"We have so much in common. Talking. Or not talking. Soup. We both really like soup."

Otto Man said...

Classic.

Tokyo Joe said...

Good for her. I think it was terrible that the other heirs would sully the sacred foundtation of marriage by even trying to cut her out of what is obviously hers. If i marry a 20 something stripper when I'm in my 90's, then I better not hear any of my kin even suggest that she might get cut out of my will. That might just tarnish the honeymoon and there would be hell to be for that.

But actually, I don't believe in inheirtance in the first place. Sure it's good for spouses (really that's just community property in my book) and children under the age of maybe 25, but aside from that I say it should all go to charity. I figure that people with money already gave their children a good foundation of education and contacts (and ideally a strong work ethic), that those things should be all the advantage they need. If someone wants to give their kids money, give it to them while you're alive. I plan on spending nearly every dime I make and leaving just enough to cover my viking funeral/Irish wake.

S.W. Anderson said...

TJ, I like your style but it will never catch on. There are platoons of dubyas out there.

Otto Man said...

I plan on spending nearly every dime I make and leaving just enough to cover my viking funeral/Irish wake.

Nice. I always liked George Best's reflection, "I spent 90% of my money on women, drink and fast cars. The rest I wasted."

But we'll never get rid of inheritances. Hell, with the bill to repeal of the Estate Tax (a.k.a. the Paris Hilton Protection Act), the GOP is trying to ensure that even more money goes to the trust fund kids.

Thrillhous said...

You said it, TJ. However, I better get my dad's Stormin' Norman plate collection when he dies.