<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Analysis: Vermont in trouble, Vickie Lynn in clover?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/02/analysis-vermont-in-trouble-vickie-lynn-in-clover/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/02/analysis-vermont-in-trouble-vickie-lynn-in-clover/</link>
	<description>The Supreme Court of the United States blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:38:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kent Scheidegger</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/02/analysis-vermont-in-trouble-vickie-lynn-in-clover/#comment-8986</link>
		<dc:creator>Kent Scheidegger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2006 18:53:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-vermont-in-trouble-vickie-lynn-in-clover/#comment-8986</guid>
		<description>Even if Mrs. Marshall wins this round, I wouldn&#039;t advise her to go out and spend the &quot;clover&quot; just yet.  A host of issues remain on remand.  See part VI, first para., of the CA9 opinion.  The case will probably not go on as long as &lt;i&gt;Jarndyce v. Jarndyce&lt;/i&gt;, which concluded Sunday night on PBS, nor is it likely to consume the whole estate, but it certainly wouldn&#039;t be over.
Suppose, SCOTUS-watchers, that two years ago someone had told you that on a day when the Supreme Court decided an abortion-related case and heard argument in a campaign finance reform case, the focus of press coverage would be on a case of probate and bankruptcy jurisdiction.  Would you have questioned the person&#039;s sanity?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even if Mrs. Marshall wins this round, I wouldn&#8217;t advise her to go out and spend the &#8220;clover&#8221; just yet.  A host of issues remain on remand.  See part VI, first para., of the CA9 opinion.  The case will probably not go on as long as <i>Jarndyce v. Jarndyce</i>, which concluded Sunday night on PBS, nor is it likely to consume the whole estate, but it certainly wouldn&#8217;t be over.</p>
<p>Suppose, SCOTUS-watchers, that two years ago someone had told you that on a day when the Supreme Court decided an abortion-related case and heard argument in a campaign finance reform case, the focus of press coverage would be on a case of probate and bankruptcy jurisdiction.  Would you have questioned the person&#8217;s sanity?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

