Archive for the ‘Fantasy Supreme Court League’ Category


A few cases we covered last month are still undecided, but we don’t know for how long. Get your ballots in quick. Here is the ballot. You know what to do.



This one should be easier: just three cases, and the better host (me) is beating the worse host (Brett) in the rankings, so everything is okay. Now, I have to just not screw this up. All I need is for him to keep being wrong. How hard can that be?

With that said, welcome back to our SCOTUS Fantasy League: here’s the April Ballot.

Image result for sexy paddington

The following scores represent three cases, with three others getting DQ’ed for being within the one month grace period (we may shorten that next year).  The cases scored below are D.C. v. Wesby (makeshift strip club), Class v. U.S. (guns on the capital building) and Patchak v. Zinke (friendly neighborhood Indian casino).  Digital Realty v. Somers (snitches get stitches), Murphy v. Smith (math and vocabulary) and Texas v. NM and Colorado (seriously who cares about this case anyway) didn’t make it.  There’s still a ton of cases left, so make sure you fill out ballots (old or new) and periodically check up to see scores.  We’ve also (fingers-crossed) figured out a sophisticated system, but if you have any objections please email us (keeping in mind the prize for winning is a box of junk).  Scores are as follows:


Mitchell, Austin, Coridan (??)


Ray, who may still cheat.




Brian S.


(sigh) Nazim, Spencer, Tony, Adam


KC, Max N.

SIXTY POINTS (60) – *Best Group*



Arturo, Ken H., Someone known only as “Doing it Wrong”, Todd, Alyssa (who rules for still listening), and Fabian (who also rules)


Tulsa’s Favorite Daughter Penni S., Silvia, Steven, Andy “Not a Half-Man”, Anthony


Kyle WM, C3PO Sam, James S., Cade, Vito, PLUS my two favorite listeners Drew (who asked a SCOTUS attendant about who ate at McDonald’s while on a tour) and Daniela (who called us cool uncles on an iTunes review)


ZLM, KJ, John the Prosecutor, Scott, Lane (sleeping giant)


Neil (another sleeping giant), Zoe F., Girl Carew, Sarah C.


Brad, Kevin (who I went to high school with and stinks), PDUB, JB in Me, Jocelyn, Shannon, Chad, Emma, Victor, my dude Keanuthon, my dudette Laura from Baltimore


Dan H., Wayne, JB 94, David, Cam (good name), Carrie S. Young Maldy, Brandon, Nora, literally everyone including possibly you, BUT THERE’S PLENTY OF SCORING LEFT TO BE HAD!!  DON’T GIVE UP NOW!


GET IT WHILE IT’S STILL FRESH! Seriously, the justices are bound to be putting out some decisions at some point soon, so you should get into this goodness before they do. Because we can’t count those ballots guessing at outcomes after those comes have outed.

So, the March ballot is here. If you have no idea what I’m talking about, go here, and if you want to vote in the older ballots while you still have time, look here. Void where void, obviously.


Some of these ballots are lighter, some are heavier, and while this is more in the latter category, I feel that there is at least one, if not more, clear winners. Sometimes we play with the spread on these things by adjusting who wins by requiring a margin, but with this number of choices, it felt like leaving some easy ones was fair. Without further doodoo, the ballot is here.

If this is news to you, please feel free to look over prior ballots and join the fun, but your entries referring to cases that have already been decided will be set aside. More details on the appropriate tab of this website.


Wheeeeee. That… was some party. I almost forgot to get this up. If anyone finds my pants, a smoldering elf, or an angry wookie, let me know. And, for the love of Santa, stay away from all of them.

I wish I had some witty banter here, but I used it all up for 2017. There are rules to this thing, and if you don’t know them, you should check them out. So, with that much ado, here’s the poll for this month’s SCOTUS Fantasy League.


I really want to entitle this one “HOW DARE YOU?” but I think the joke only works (if it works) after you’ve voted in this month’s ballot. In light of Gill v. Whitford, there’s a voting system question in there, and few turkey questions (please send recipes!).

If you don’t know what this is about, you should know that we have a Fantasy SCOTUS league in which folks compete to try to predict the outcome of a few US Supreme Court cases. Correct answers garner points as described per the rules, and the winner is selected posthumously. That is, after I kill them for getting more points than I did. If you haven’t already done so, you should probably go and vote on last month’s ballot before the court releases a ruling on one of those cases.


It’s only appropriate that we have an Epic plaintiff among our cases, since our new season of the SCOTUS Fantasy League leads constitutional liberty protections. I’m clearly not sure what I’m saying here, but I think the feeling is mutual. The November ballot is here. You probably know the rules, but if you don’t, they’re here.

Just to summarize the rules, you pick the outcomes in a few cases we put on a ballot like the one above every month. Whoever gets the most points, at the end of the term, wins a box of stuff from Brett and, maybe, Nazim, if you give us a way to get it to you. The easiest way to not get point is to not put your ballots in. If you put more than ballots in, and we manage to figure that out, you only get the votes from the second ballot. In addition, we’re adding rules banning gerrymandering the Justices, because Nazim. Also, you must read all our SCOTUS Fantasy League announcements in the voice of that announcer in the Hunger Games, the one played by Stanley Tucci – in your head. You don’t have to read it out loud. Finally, don’t taunt happy fun ball. It has feelings, you know. Also, terms may change without notice, since we’re doing this for fun.

Gavel bones 2

So, Nazim screwed up, and scored Nelson for Manrique last time. Now that this has been fixed, we owe apologies all around, and our gratitude to listener Austin, who caught that something was wrong. However, that may have changed your position in a way that you might not recognize based on our last update. In any case, I’m crunching a lot of numbers here, so please let me know if you think I screwed up, but only if you’ll give me some idea of how to fix it. Again, thanks, Austin, you golden god, and victor of this term’s League! To make room for some runners-up, I highlighted the scores of the folks who got the most points from each ballot. You’re no slouches either. Especially Lauren, who pulled it off twice! Listener and host Brett got second place, which he thinks is worth something.

In Sessions v. Morales-Santana, we’re giving the outcome to the Appellee, despite the fact that he’s not going to get citizenship, because he made the successful equal protection argument that got the law overturned. I know, he’s screwed, but he technically won. And technical victories are the best victories, amIrite? Anyone? Crickets?

Hernández v. Mesa was decided per curiam, so nobody’s getting any points for the vote or the author of the majority opinion. Maybe we’ll make those options available for the next term. Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. is another one in which nobody gets any points at all. Overton v. US was consolidated with Turner v. US, so the results were similar, and Vito, oh, Vito, you fat, magnificent bastard, I could kiss you†: you predicted everything correctly for both, scoring ridiculous points there. Ashcroft v. Abbasi saw a 4-2 majority. I’m not really sure what the league takeaway for that is. I mean, next term we’ll just use the majority number to assign points, but I don’t think it’s worth giving all the majority options down to a one justice majority… Maybe I’ll lump per curiam and “smaller majority” together as one choice? What do you think?

Sessions v. Dimaya and Jennings v. Rodriguez will be decided next term, so they won’t be scored this term. Hopefully we’ll remember to add them back into the mix next term, and if I’m really motivated I’ll look up the predictions people made this term and throw them in the mix for those who don’t re-submit their predictions.

This seems like the right add some ado, when I say the word ado, I move the accent to the first syllable, because it makes me sound Japanese, I think. Without it, here are the final scores:

Final Rankings

†Offer void where prohibited or disinclined. I might mention that I’ve never met Vito in meatspace.


So, there were a few updates: Manrique (which I just like saying) and that crazy Venezuela case and Tyrell (not the Bladerunner corporation) and the one where Miami sued banks for collapsing the economy… Yeah, those all came out. But a lot of people are falling behind just because they didn’t fill out their May ballots. Spring showers, I guess. Anyway, after all that ado, here are the updated rankings:

May Rankings