In the movie business, the success of a movie is often defined by how good its “legs” are. One thing you have to say about Anna Nicole Smith’s case before the US Supreme Court, “It sure has great legs!”
Here’s more postings that caught my eye, in addition to the ones previously reported here:

  • Arianna Huffington reports on her blog here that “bombshells” beat “bombs” for airtime coverage on the CBS Evening News, with Anna’s story going for 1 minute, 56 seconds, compared with the story on deadly suicide bombs in Iraq, which lasted 1 minute, 39 seconds.
  • The Houston Chronicle’s Nick Anderson draws this political cartoon.
  • Houston’s Clear Thinkers’ Tom Kirkendall joins Althouse in predicting Anna wins.
  • SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein, co-counsel to Pierce Marshall, wrote this extended analysis on the oral argument, in which he summarized the four things that struck him about the oral argument “from the inside-baseball perspective of Supreme Court advocacy.” His final observation (about Judge Alito): Watch out for that new reliever in the bullpen. He may not say a lot, but he’s gotta heck of a sinker!
  • The WSJ Law Blog reminds us that J. Howard Marshall was a T&E professor at Yale. This, however, is challenged here at the Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog. I think the WSJ Law Blog wins this dispute, since Pierce Marshall’s response brief (found here) says on page 3 that J. Howard Marshall was a former T&E professor at Yale. [NB: I guess that answers the question of what do Yale T&E professors do after they retire? Become T&A professors, of course!].

Even French blogs have picked up on the craze, with one saying: “Anna fera tout pour r�cup�rer les 1,6 milliard de dollars de son ancien grabataire de mari“. [NB: Even if it doesn’t translate out that way, the French version sure sounds like it echos Anna’s argument that “the son grabbed the old man’s money.”]
© Steve Jakubowski 2006