Jump to content
270soft Forum

Recommended Posts

Based on what I have posted two days ago I wanted to know if there's any interest in a Supreme Court Roleplay.

What's the task? We look at landmark decisions since the first case and decide them the way we think is the best.

As said, I'd prefer to fill the seats with the nine most active members here.

According to this https://270soft.ipbhost.com/topmembers/?filter=member_posts 

Patine, Vcczar, Actinguy, Admin, Reagan, Herbert, Potato, me, jvikings are still here

In case someone wouldn't take up his seat at the Forum Supreme Court Middle, Hestia and MBDemSoc are the next in line.

 

Feedback welcome!

 

vcczar @Reagan04 @Actinguy @Patine @Conservative Elector 2 @TheMiddlePolitical @WVProgressive @SilentLiberty @pilight @admin_270 @Hestia11 @Herbert Hoover @mlcorcoran @Leuser @upandaway @jvikings1 @Rodja @Edouard @jnewt @Nentomat @Kingthero @Sunnymentoaddict @RFK/JFKfan @Mr.Blood @Zenobiyl @Wiw @MBDemSoc @ThePotatoWalrus @Alxeu @Allyn @Cenzonico @CentristGuy @Ishan @billay @wolves @RI Democrat @lizarraba @lizphairphreak @TheLiberalKitten @MysteryKnight @avatarmushi @servo75 @Mark_W

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Here is what I would say about the composition of the court...  1. Chief Justice @Conservative Elector 2: Solidly a member of the conservative bloc on the court, and a rigid textualist. Most econ

A Supreme Court vacancy has opened up! Justice Admin is retiring! 😉 President publishes short list, including Middle, Hestia and MBDemSoc!

It's far more interesting and dynamic than U.S. politics.

Yeah sounds interesting.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think about a way to make it more inclusive for other active members like you as well. My plan isn't finished yet.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I just think about a way to make it more inclusive for other active members like you as well. My plan isn't finished yet.

This would be great in collaboration with the poll I’m currently creating, expect that to be finished and posted later today.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

This would be great in collaboration with the poll I’m currently creating, expect that to be finished and posted later today.

Sounds great! Perhaps it inspires us 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Zenobiyl said:

How about less active members can argue for/against to the court on certain cases? And then the court gives a ruling afterwards?

That's a good idea actually. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what I would say about the composition of the court... 

1. Chief Justice @Conservative Elector 2Solidly a member of the conservative bloc on the court, and a rigid textualist. Most economically libertarian on the court. Justice C was appointed by Bush in 2005 to replace William Rehnquist. 

2. Justice @Reagan04: Another member of the conservative bloc on the court, and a huge proponent of civil liberties versus government intrusion. Very opposed to the regulation of intrastate commerce and skeptical of the vague claims of programs such as the Affordable Care Act. The most senior member on the Supreme Court, Justice R having been appointed by HW Bush in 1991. 

3. Justice @jvikings1: The third of four reliably conservative votes. Justice J is a proponent of economic and social liberties, and was appointed by President Trump in 2017 following the controversial refusal to hear the nomination of Obama pick Merrick Garland. 

4. Justice @vcczar: An unabashed progressive activist on the court. Justice V regularly votes in favor of government regulation and power that may not be explicitly found in the Constitution, but that he believes is necessary to enact the duties of the government in the modern era. The second most senior member of the court, having been Clinton's first appointment to the highest court in 1994. 

5. Justice @Actinguy: A moderately liberal on the court. While fairly consistently liberal, Justice A has cast some votes viewed by liberals as questionable in regards to voter IDs. However, his judicial activism on social issues is relatively unmatched on the court outside of Justice V. 

6. Justice @Hestia11: A reliably liberal justice. Justice HH was appointed by President Obama as his first justice in 2009. 

7. Justice @Herbert Hoover. A moderate justice who has voted with the liberals on the court roughly 60% of the time. Appointed by President Obama in 2010, and notably authored a dissenting opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, in which he argued that while he agreed that the Affordable Care Act was likely unconstitutional, he believed that it was a political affair that would only damage the court to involve itself with. 

8. Justice @SilentLiberty: The final member of the conservative bloc on the court. Notably, Justice S is the only conservative on the court to believe that the Constitution is a living and dynamic document, and he has so far rarely broken with the conservative bloc but could be expected to do so. Justice S was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2018 with a relatively tame confirmation battle. 

9. VACANT. The final seat on the court is currently vacant due to the unexpected death of Justice @WVProgressive. A confirmation battle in an election year is going to be controversial for President Trump, but he has announced as of today that his pick will be 31 year old @ThePotatoWalrus. The relative youth and inexperience of this pick is unprecedented, and he would likely become the longest serving member in the court's history if confirmed. Senators Murkowski and Collins have vowed not to confirm in the election season, so if two more Republicans break ranks, Democrats will have a chance to appoint their own if they win the White House. One rumored pick is @The Blood, who would be one of the most liberal members on the court. 

The court's composition as it is currently lends itself to often close votes, with the Conservative Bloc often voting together in the minority against the liberals and the moderates. However, Obergefell v. Hodges was a landmark case in which the court's 7-2 decision effectively legalized same-sex marriage across the United States. Justice A authored the opinion, stating that LBGTQ+ members constituted a protected class that would receive federal protections similar to gender, age, and racial classes. 

With this court's composition, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius was a 5-4 decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was unconstitutional, with Justices A, H, HH, and V in the minority. 

  • Like 6
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

Here is what I would say about the composition of the court... 

I'd give you more than like for this. Awesome!

That still leaves the question how to incorporate other players, if they want to play.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I'd give you more than like for this. Awesome!

That still leaves the question how to incorporate other players, if they want to play.

Lower courts? Perhaps they each take a Federal Circuit? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Reagan04 said:

Lower courts? Perhaps they each take a Federal Circuit? 

I thought about this as well. I guess tomorrow I will have fletched out the details with this idea and the idea of @Zenobiyl and we will be able to start.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I thought about this as well. I guess tomorrow I will have fletched out the details with this idea and the idea of @Zenobiyl and we will be able to start.

With something like this, it could absolutely be done on a week to week basis. After all, I'm sure that myself, Reagan, and you would love to add a lot of flavor to our posts with it. I wouldn't mind it being a case a week at all. 

2 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

That still leaves the question how to incorporate other players, if they want to play.

I like @Zenobiyl's idea that those who aren't on the court can argue cases before the court. Maybe what we could do is that a non-court member proposes a certain case to the court and yourself as ChJ chooses whether or not we take it just for simplicity. We could also use the Rule of 4, but that would likely be a bit time consuming.Then, two posters can argue each side of the case throughout the week or whatever the time limit is and then justices cast votes and write opinions at the end. 

I'm not sure of how effective it might be, but it would be fun if it worked in practice. Of course, the first thing that would have to happen is that everyone on the court actually agree to be on the court lol.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...