SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 04-1544
VICKIE LYNN MARSHALL, PETITIONERv. E. PIERCE MARSHALL
JUSTICE GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the court.
In a published order released this morning, this court issued its decision in the above-captioned matter, to wit, Marshall v. Marshall. However, the published opinion inadvertently limited itself to four narrow sections discussing the scope of the probate exception to the jurisdiction of the federal courts; a matter that will be virtually impossible for a panel of legal experts to discuss tonight on Nancy Grace. As a result, Sections I-IV of today’s opinion in this case are herein supplemented with the legal discussion contained in sections V-VIII, below:
V.
Did Anna Nicole Smith truly love J. Howard Marshall?
While the issue of whether Anna (aka Vickie Lynn Marshall) really loved her 89-year-old oil-baron husband, or if she was just some trashy gold digger was neither pleaded nor argued before this court, we have nevertheless reviewed the record below and herein find that Ms. Smith was indeed a complete and unrepentant opportunist. We further find as a matter of law that she never loved the guy. [1]
VI.
Did Anna Nicole look good at oral argument?
While Ms. Smith neither testified nor spoke at oral argument, she did attend court, declined all interview requests, wept tastefully at the appropriate moments, and was the proximate cause of a near-media riot outside the courtroom as Access Hollywood battled Entertainment Tonight for the opportunity to more deeply explore the legal nuance of the federal courts’ subject matter jurisdiction in state probate cases.
This court herein confesses that there is some disagreement among its membership on the matter of Anna Nicole’s wardrobe, with Justice Scalia holding that Ms. Smith’s somber black suit was extremely fetching; Justice Breyer concurring in the matter of her suit but dissenting regarding her oversized sunglasses; and Justice Thomas, joining in Justice Breyer’s opinion but dissenting as to the length of her skirt.
Justice Souter has filed a separate dissent only insofar as he is still not precisely clear as to who Anna Nicole is, or why the court is hearing her case.
VII.
Is Anna Nicole’s diet working for her?
Totally. The court rules unanimously that Anna Nicole looks better than she has looked in years, and that TRIMSPA works, and that it is now, per court Rule 415.8, the official diet pill of choice for the justices, their law clerks, as well as for all future parties to appear before this court.
VIII.
Should Anna Nicole get a new reality show?
The court finds itself divided on this matter. A plurality of its members, led by Justice Kennedy, finds that it is not within the ambit of the decorum, deference, etiquette, or good taste befitting a former Playboy bunny to nationally televise the private proceedings of her own life. Justice Alito dissents, finding that the episode in which Anna, Sugar Pie, and the crew decamp to Lake Cahuilla for a wacky few days of survival in the wilds was “funny on the merits.” Justice Souter has filed a lone dissent in Section VIII, below, observing that, in kinship with Anna Nicole’s former husband, he would authorize a reprise of the Anna Nicole Show only if they roll those cameras in “over my dead body.”
It is so ordered.
[1] We also find that she was fake-crying at oral argument.
