Look out, the Supremes are out to get ya!!!!

[cute fuzzy bunny]

You and me both Big John.

 

[ESRBob]

However, it is fun to give my imput on the legal related questions and doesn't feel like work at all.  I think I really like "the law" but don't like to work.  If that makes any sense.

Martha

Martha,
I think you're on to something important. You might like to know my theory on work etc -- I firmly believe that for a lot of us, work in the right doses makes a huge amount of sense during "ER".whether you need the money or not. Its "Overwork" which is the killer. I'll bet there are some great ways for you to do a bit of law in ER, maybe even making a little money, but using your brain, feeling needed and engaged, and yet being able to put the whole thing down when you like and go for a long vacation or a long walk or to an art class or whatever.

I know some on the board are worried that any work would suck them back into the old rat race, but for me and a lot of others, a little work can be a great thing.

end of soapbox!

ESRBob

 

[John Galt]

ESRbob is right! I am very wary of any sort of work
as a recovering workaholic. I find it very difficult to "dabble". Before I know it I am "balls to the wall"
and back in the "soup". Anyway, like an alcoholic,
I can't just have one drink.

John Galt

 

[Martha]

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 7 agreed to decide whether a married couple's individual retirement accounts (IRAs) are protected from bankruptcy proceedings.

At issue in Rousey v. Jacoway (No. 03-1407) is an exemption in the Bankruptcy Code for "stock bonus, pension, profit sharing, annuity or similar plans or contracts," to the extent that the assets are reasonably necessary for the debtor's support. Whether an IRA is a plan similar to a pension, profit sharing or annuity plan has been debated by federal appeals courts. According to the 8th Circuit appeals court in Rousey, IRAs that are rolled over from ERISA-qualified plans into new IRAs are less like exempt retirement plans and more like non-exempt bank savings accounts with favorable tax treatment. Consequently, they are not exempt from creditors in bankruptcy.

A ruling in the case -- which may affect up to the one-third of U.S. households that have traditional IRAs -- is expected in the fall term.

Whenever the supremes start to mess with my IRA $, I get real nervous. :-/

To the extent anyone cares, arguments were heard in the Rousey case on December 1 and a decision is expected next summer. To read all about it: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...01/supreme_court_ponders_ira_bankruptcy_case/

 

[Nords]

Heah come de Judge... uh, hello, Judge?

... and a decision is expected next summer.  

I'm curious, Martha. If I'd told my bosses that I'd take their question under consideration and get back to them in about six months, I wouldn't have had any more bosses. (Come to think of it, that would explain a lot!)

What exactly goes on during six months that can't possibly be accelerated into an afternoon's bull session over a couple frosty beverages? In the case of one or two of the more "senior" justices, isn't six months a fairly significant longevity risk of not being able to participate in the decision?

 

[Martha]

Re: Heah come de Judge... uh, hello, Judge?

I'm curious, Martha. If I'd told my bosses that I'd take their question under consideration and get back to them in about six months, I wouldn't have had any more bosses. (Come to think of it, that would explain a lot!)

What exactly goes on during six months that can't possibly be accelerated into an afternoon's bull session over a couple frosty beverages? In the case of one or two of the more "senior" justices, isn't six months a fairly significant longevity risk of not being able to participate in the decision?

I don't understand either, especially since they all come well prepared to the oral arguments. It may have something to do with the fact they are appointed for life.