Updated 01/19/11

“Our out of control bankruptcy courts now deciding cases on feelings.”  Click

(This paragraph reminds me of Judge Perry in LA)

At least since the forced busing case of 1971 and the Roe v Wade abortion case, conservatives have been complaining about judges taking undue powers unto themselves. For decades these power mad judges have been expanding their reach to control our lives until even our state and federal legislatures have seemed to give up their rightful role as lawmakers. Once again we have a judge that has reached beyond his proper role.

————-

“Anna Nicole Smith case threatens American property rights, estate planning.”
Americans who believe this “celebrity” case has nothing to do with them are wrong.  The use of legal gamesmanship to assault a legitimate estate plan as orchestrated by Smith and her legal team violates American property rights and could impact Americans of all economic, social and political straits on a number of fronts.

**********

Interesting articles from the experts…..

Anna Nicole Smith Goes Back to Court
By Robert Alt, The Heritage Foundation
http://bit.ly/fIhKrG

From the beginning, Anna Nicole’s claim was designed to forum shop and to manipulate the legal system—to bring a claim into federal court that was already being addressed by a state court of competent jurisdiction. Were her estate to win, it would bring uncertainty and added expense to estate planning, and promote forum shopping—all bad results. The Ninth Circuit opinion is well-reasoned, right on the law, and has the salutary effect of being good policy. Law and policy would be well-served if the Supreme Court affirmed, and finally put an end to this lengthy exercise in forum shopping and avarice.

The Anna Nicole Smith Case and Why It Matters
By Timothy Lee, Center for Individual Freedom
http://bit.ly/erCrAz

Although the Ninth Circuit’s recent record is far from sterling, affirming its judgment in this case is critical. By doing so, the Supreme Court can prevent confusion in estate planning by preserving judicial forum certainty. Additionally, the Supreme Court can preserve our Constitution’s balance of Article I and Article III judges, as well as Congress’s intent that federal bankruptcy courts possess specific, limited core authority. It can also restrain out-of-control trial lawyers from simply forum-shopping until they land in a court more hospitable to their claim.

Should the Supreme Court rule in Stern’s favor, it will trigger more lawyer abuse and unrestrained specialty court interference in matters far beyond its proper authority. Ultimately, Congressional correction would be necessary.

This case represents how the legal system can be exploited to delay justice and prolong litigious abuse. After fifteen long years, it’s time for the Court to put this sordid litigation to a proper end.

The Anna Nicole Smith Supreme Court case: Uniting liberals and conservatives
By Lanny Davis and David Rivkin
http://bit.ly/g6gQUL

The basic question is, which verdict stands, the one reached by the Texas jury after a five-month trial or the quick decision of a bankruptcy judge? Usually, the first judgment is the one that controls, but there’s a quirk: Because a bankruptcy judge isn’t a “judge” under the Constitution, he can’t enter a final judgment in cases that aren’t “core” to the bankruptcy process. Instead, a federal judge — one appointed by the procedures specified in the Constitution and totally insulated from political pressure — has to review the evidence and make his own decision. As a matter of law, that’s the final decision.

…

The position taken by Ms. Smith’s estate offends progressives, who do not want a plaintiff in a state civil rights case to be vulnerable to being trumped by a decision by a bankruptcy court. A bankruptcy judge is not required to abide by the Seventh Amendment’s right to a trial by jury, nor the various due-process rights protected by the rules that govern Article III-federal judges cases.

…

At the same time, the position taken by Ms. Smith’s attorneys also offends conservative principles. First, it would allow a judge created by Congress to intrude on the independent, final decision making powers of federal judges, expressly invested with such powers by Article III of the Constitution. Second, it would ignore federalist principles deferring to the states, such as state court systems, except for where the Constitution expressly provides for overriding state legal authority.

* Thanks SheStone!

Transcript of today’s arguments.

Tagged as: Anna Nicole Smith Goes Back to Court By Robert Alt, Center for Individual Freedom, Marshall vs Marshall, Stern vs Marshall, The Anna Nicole Smith Case and Why It Matters By Timothy Lee, The Anna Nicole Smith Supreme Court case: Uniting liberals and conservatives By Lanny Davis and David Rivkin, The Heritage Foundation