|
But none of that matters when the court hears cases like the first one of its new term, a bankruptcy dispute with no evident ideological issue. The justices were trying to figure out whether someone in bankruptcy who owned a car outright could still shield some income from creditors by claiming an allowance for a car payment. Like many seemingly easy issues that come to the court, this one had divided federal appeals courts. At one point, Kagan wondered whether someone with a car that had 200,000 miles on it "and was going to break down in the next five years" could plausibly claim the allowance. No, said Deanne Maynard, the lawyer for the credit card company that is trying to recoup some of the nearly $33,000 it is owed by Jason Ransom. Ransom's decision to claim a $471 monthly allowance for car payments though he owes no money on his 2004 Toyota Camry landed the case before the Supreme Court. Kagan may have felt somewhat more comfortable than usual on a justice's first day in court because two of the lawyers in the case, Maynard and Justice Department lawyer Nicole Saharsky, worked for her when she was at the Justice Department. The justices did not appear to lean one way or the other in the argument. Roberts suggested that some of the arguments on both sides would lead to absurd results.
[Associated
Press;
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
News | Sports | Business | Rural Review | Teaching & Learning | Home and Family | Tourism | Obituaries
Community |
Perspectives
|
Law & Courts |
Leisure Time
|
Spiritual Life |
Health & Fitness |
Teen Scene
Calendar
|
Letters to the Editor