Former stripper turned weight-loss promoter Anna Nicole Smith faced the scales of justice on Tuesday, a Supreme Court showdown with millions of dollars on the line.
The legal issue, stemming from a nasty family feud over the fortune of Smith's late husband, J. Howard Marshall II, turns on whether state or federal courts have jurisdiction in the matter.
Smith, the buxom spokeswoman for a diet product company, was awarded $474 million by a federal bankruptcy judge. That was later reduced by a federal district judge and then thrown out altogether by a federal appeals court on jurisdictional grounds. Read more.
FNC wants to know what YOU think!
Will she get millions or will the case go bust?
E-mail us at email@example.com and jump into the debate.
Check out what FOX Fans are saying:
"In the pictures of her with her husband, he seems pretty happy. I think she's a gold-digger who dug in the right place. She deserves some of his money just for what she went through, sincerely or not." — Allen (Ellisville, MS)
"Anna should not get a dime. She’s a nasty gold digging tramp. She has proven that over and over. Give her cab fare and send her on her way." — Dennis
"If she consummated the marriage then she earned every penny! Seriously, they were married. She is entitled to part of his estate. He was an intelligent man who made a fortune in his life, if he was smart enough to do that he was smart enough to make his own choices. It is disrespectful of his son to try and cut out the woman who made his father happy in the years before his death. So what if she was a stripper, she was legally employed; there should be no shame in that. At least we as taxpayers were not supporting her!" — Kim (Winder, GA)
"Talk about a nervy high priced Hustler. This doll takes the Cake. His written wills do not even mention her." — James
"J. Howard Marshall II married Anna... she was his wife and she made him happy. There was no pre-nup arrangement so regardless of what his family (or anyone else) thinks of her, she deserves part of her late husband's money." — Patti (Farmington Hills, MI)
"I think Anna's whole case is a terrible waste of taxpayers' money. She is a gold-digging slob. The reality television show about her on the e-channel several years ago showed her gross, obtuse lifestyle and indifference to “reality” unless it absolutely fulfills her self-indulgence." — Michael (North Brunswick, NJ)
"No, she should not get half of his estate. They were married for a year. At his age, if he had wanted her to have half of his estate, he would have made sure that it was in his will. Or he would have voiced it to numerous people. I think he intended to provide for her while he was living (and did so very nicely), but that his estate would go to his son and not a flamboyant stripper. He was much smarter than that." — Debbie
"The case should go bust. This is more of a promotional and publicity stunt for the gold digging trailer park trash queen. The federal courts already have enough work to do. They do not need to stick their noses into State probate issues." — Wayne
"I think that no matter what she has done in the past is totally irrelevant to this court ordeal. So what, she was a stripper. I don't particularly like her, but she is a human being and an American who deserves to be treated as such. I think it is wrong, that people are trying to take away, what is rightfully hers. And even if she was just using the old man, he gave it to her, and she was his wife. It is her money, give it to her, and move on. So many other important things are going on. " — Lavena (Missoula, MT)
"She was legally married to him. So whatever the law says about widows is what should happen. Who cares if someone doesn't like it?" — Erik
"So much for the sanctity of marriage. I hope she gets it all!" — Earle
"With all the suffering going on in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, I really don’t care what she gets. Seems like she got plenty while she was married. Why would one person need more than one house? His son is just a greedy person too. They both deserve what happens to them." — G.K.
"My hope is that the Supreme Court will stay true to its purpose and ignore the celebrity/millionaire aspect of this case. To prevent relationship abuses by simply crossing a state line, I support a federal jurisdiction in such matters as divorce, wills and the like. A citizen should always have the right to take any case to the highest court in the land. That court always has the option of letting state rulings stand by declining to hear a case. In this case, a strong adherence to the rule of law is necessary. We encourage wills for this very reason. The one-year of marriage, the millions she already was given, all lead me to believe she has everything she is entitled to. Men are notorious for saying whatever it takes to get a woman’s clothes off, 89 years old or not. This case should be about intent. The only evidence we have of that intent is the will. I think Ms. Smith will go bust and the court will let the will stand." — Kerry