Editing 2037: Supreme Court Bracket
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
− | The {{w|Supreme Court of the United States}} is the highest federal court of the United States. A {{w|Bracket (tournament)|tournament bracket}} is a tree diagram that represents the series of games played during a knockout tournament. | + | {{incomplete|Each court case needs its own explanation, preferably a small paragraph instead of a sentence in parentheses. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}} |
+ | |||
+ | The {{w|Supreme Court of the United States}} is the highest federal court of the United States. A {{w|Bracket (tournament)|tournament bracket}} is a tree diagram that represents the series of games played during a knockout tournament. [[Randall]] suggests that the winners of the 16 listed court cases will file against each other and then again until the final winner is selected. However, many of them were humans who lived too far apart chronologically for that to be possible. For example, over 100 years separated Gibbons v. Ogden from Near v. Minnesota, making a lawsuit between {w|Thomas Gibbons|Thomas Gibbons} and J.M. Near improbable. (Minnesota is a state and could survive indefinitely, but it lost the case.) In fact, {w|Thomas Gibbons|Thomas Gibbons} died in 1826, making it impossible for him to be a party to a lawsuit subsequent to Near v. Minnesota, which was decided in 1931. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Court cases are typically titled as plaintiff versus defendant. Randall is spoofing this idea by imagining famous Supreme Court cases as though they were games in the first round of a single-elimination tournament, similar to college basketball's {{w|NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament|March Madness}}, complete with a ranking bracket. "Sweet 16" in the context of a tournament refers to the stage in a tournament where 16 competitors remain. This comic's concept is thus a word play on "court" (court of law v. basketball court). | ||
The cases are: | The cases are: | ||
Line 39: | Line 43: | ||
====''Griswold'' (winner) v. Connecticut, 1965==== | ====''Griswold'' (winner) v. Connecticut, 1965==== | ||
− | + | ToDo:{{w|Griswold v. Connecticut|Griswold v. Connecticut}} | |
+ | (right to birth control) | ||
====''Miranda'' (winner) v. Arizona, 1966==== | ====''Miranda'' (winner) v. Arizona, 1966==== | ||
− | + | ToDo:{{w|Miranda v. Arizona|Miranda v. Arizona}} | |
+ | (required police to inform suspects of their rights) | ||
====''Loving'' (winner) v. Virginia, April 10, 1967 - June 12, 1967==== | ====''Loving'' (winner) v. Virginia, April 10, 1967 - June 12, 1967==== | ||
− | + | ToDo: {{w|Loving v. Virginia|Loving v. Virginia}} | |
+ | (overturned a ban on interracial marriage) | ||
====''Roe'' (winner) v. Wade, January 22, 1973==== | ====''Roe'' (winner) v. Wade, January 22, 1973==== | ||
− | + | ToDo: {{w|Roe v. Wade|Roe v. Wade}} | |
− | + | (right to abortion) | |
− | |||
====''United States'' (winner) v. Nixon, July 8, 1974 - July 24, 1974==== | ====''United States'' (winner) v. Nixon, July 8, 1974 - July 24, 1974==== | ||
− | + | ToDo: {{w|United States v. Nixon|United States v. Nixon}} | |
− | + | (ordered president Nixon to turn over Watergate tapes) | |
− | |||
− | + | ====''Bush'' (winner) v. Gore, December 12, 2000===== | |
+ | ToDo: {{w|Bush v. Gore|Bush v. Gore}} | ||
+ | (disputed 2000 Presidential election) | ||
====''Lawrence'' (winner) v. Texas, June 26, 2003==== | ====''Lawrence'' (winner) v. Texas, June 26, 2003==== | ||
− | {{w|Lawrence v. Texas|Lawrence v. Texas}} | + | ToDo:{{w|Lawrence v. Texas|Lawrence v. Texas}} |
− | + | (invalidated sodomy laws) | |
− | |||
− | + | ====''Massachusetts'' (winner) v. EPA, 2007==== | |
+ | ToDo:{{w|Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency|Massachusetts v. EPA}} | ||
+ | (decided that the state of Massachusetts has standing to sue the EPA for not doing enough against global warming) | ||
====''Obergefell'' (winner) v. Hodges, June 26, 2015==== | ====''Obergefell'' (winner) v. Hodges, June 26, 2015==== | ||
− | + | ToDo:{{w|Obergefell v. Hodges|Obergefell v. Hodges}} | |
− | + | (allowing same-sex marriage) | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
The title text refers to a practice of filling out a March Madness bracket, predicting a winner for each game up to the championship. A bracket is "busted" when the result of a game is not as predicted; because future matchups depend on previous results, the whole bracket is worthless at that point. Randall "had Massachusetts v. Connecticut in the final", predicting both parties would win all previous rounds and advance to the final game/case. Because Connecticut lost its first-round case to Griswold, his bracket is busted in the first round. | The title text refers to a practice of filling out a March Madness bracket, predicting a winner for each game up to the championship. A bracket is "busted" when the result of a game is not as predicted; because future matchups depend on previous results, the whole bracket is worthless at that point. Randall "had Massachusetts v. Connecticut in the final", predicting both parties would win all previous rounds and advance to the final game/case. Because Connecticut lost its first-round case to Griswold, his bracket is busted in the first round. | ||
− | In the second part of the title text, Randall writes: "I had Massachusetts v. Connecticut in the final, probably in a case over who gets to annex Rhode Island." In fact, there actually was a Supreme Court case ''Massachusetts v. Connecticut'' (summary at [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/282/660/ Justia.com], full text at [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17012735467934830012&q=Connecticut+v.+Massachusetts&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 Google Scholar]) dealing with water rights on the Connecticut River, which flows between the two states. | + | In the second part of the title text, Randall writes: "I had Massachusetts v. Connecticut in the final, probably in a case over who gets to annex Rhode Island." In fact, there actually was a Supreme Court case ''Massachusetts v. Connecticut'' (summary at [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/282/660/ Justia.com], full text at [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17012735467934830012&q=Connecticut+v.+Massachusetts&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 Google Scholar]) dealing with water rights on the Connecticut River, which flows between the two states. |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== | ||
Line 128: | Line 106: | ||
:[Caption below the frame:] | :[Caption below the frame:] | ||
− | :Now that we've finished the round of 32, the Supreme | + | :Now that we've finished the round of 32, the Supreme court will be moving on to the Sweet 16. |
{{comic discussion}} | {{comic discussion}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− |