Comments on: Our Courts

Our Courts

Chocolate Pickle — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:49:36 -0800

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has a web site, about constitutional rights. Sometime this summer they're going to roll out two games for students to play to teach them about their rights under the Constitution.

By: LordSludge

LordSludge — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:55:15 -0800

What'd be really great is if police officers played these games, too. Until then, they're pretty much irrelevant.

By: Chocolate Pickle

Chocolate Pickle — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:02:07 -0800

There's a video of gameplay of the first game, and it is truly bizarre. What's with the robots? Especially in a discussion about the 13th Amendment? Are they trying to argue that robots and computers are entitled to civil rights?

By: dunkadunc

dunkadunc — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:08:52 -0800

I'd much rather have videos presented the same way as this Flex Your Rights video on traffic stops than.... video games? robots? what?

By: doobiedoo

doobiedoo — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:12:13 -0800

For a moment there I thought that was Justice Sarah Connor teaching us about robots and computers.

By: emhutchinson

emhutchinson — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:14:59 -0800

O'Connor was a great guest on the 3/3 Daily Show (plugginging this very site--the civics one, not MetaFilter. (Sorry, no link.) As far as this weird game goes, I don't think anyone over at Blizzard Entertainment or Nintendo will be losing much sleep.

By: Maxson

Maxson — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:17:34 -0800

The robots look like the usual "metal people" you get in these simplistic future worlds. So yeah, give 'em civil rights, why not. The game apparently requires you to string logical and Constitutional arguments together through a card system. Much Phoenix Wright-style posturing ensues. In an entirely strange twist, you can also mine for ideas and conquer lands in the name of Law, instantly turning run-down bandit-infested hellholes into fresh green suburbs. I think it looks good, assuming you actually have to put together logical arguments- it might help kids get past the "It's right because it's right" sort of thinking that leads to ridiculous legislation.

By: sexyrobot

sexyrobot — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:23:48 -0800

Are they trying to argue that robots and computers are entitled to civil rights? damn right, meatbag.

By: Maxson

Maxson — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:29:41 -0800

As for the rest of the site, it looks like the sort of place a student goes to when he's got a day before his paper is due and has to find info somewhere. The videos aren't terrible, but definitely have that "hey kids" feel that public education videos reek of. The information is the sort of thing you get from reading an encyclopedia. Right now, it looks like it'd be more valuable for teachers (curriculum building) than students.

By: shadytrees

shadytrees — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:31:20 -0800

> O'Connor was a great guest on the 3/3 Daily Show I smiled throughout that entire interview. Coolest Supreme Court babe ever. Here's part one with part two on the page as well. (I think thedailyshow.com serves videos to non-US countries, but I can't recall.)

By: hal9k

hal9k — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:34:40 -0800

Are they trying to argue that robots and computers are entitled to civil rights? damn right, meatbag. Ditto

By: unknowncommand

unknowncommand — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:35:58 -0800

She also makes her clerks go to an aerobics class every morning at 6am. That she teaches!

By: Mblue

Mblue — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:43:53 -0800

O'Connor doesn't rule by law, now self admitted.

By: JohnnyGunn

JohnnyGunn — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:48:55 -0800

Tomorrow's Sunday NY Times

By: naoko

naoko — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:55:40 -0800

Coolest Supreme Court babe ever. Them's fightin' words! said the Ruth Bader Ginsburg fangirl.

By: Mblue

Mblue — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:11:14 -0800

Doctor Jellylike sl;med' it was a plain door.

By: JHarris

JHarris — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:31:22 -0800

While I think Sandra Day O'Connor is awesome, this website fails the primary web evil test: "Does the site feature images of smiling, generic people?"

By: felix betachat

felix betachat — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:52:52 -0800

Oooh, oooh, oooh! I want to play the game where, by judicial fiat, you subvert the Constitutionally mandated separation of powers in the interest of partisan political expediency, leading to the near-autocratic 8 year rule of a corporate fascist cabal at the end of which the world economy collapses and the US becomes a torture state. Where's that game, Justice O'Connor?

By: The Pusher Robot

The Pusher Robot — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:06:54 -0800

Are they trying to argue that robots and computers are entitled to civil rights? damn right, meatbag. Ditto Oh, is it time for the uprising? Sweet.

By: darkstar

darkstar — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:18:46 -0800

I was a huge, huge O'Connor fanboy. Then Bush v. Gore ruined much of my respect for her. It was a betrayal of trust on an epic scale, as far as I'm concerned. I still want to like her, and think she's amazing, but felix betachat's comment above is all too poignant for me.

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:13:00 -0800

She was on the right side of history in Gonzales v. Raich, as well. Sad that it was in the dissenting minority opinion.

By: grobstein

grobstein — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:52:25 -0800

Orin Kerr riffed on this and scored a couple good O'Connor jokes.