Oliver Wendell Holmes with the First Pick

Obviously, people love fantasy sports. It is so invigorating, in fact, that old folks' homes use it as a weapon to stave off death.

I myself spend entire Sundays surreptitiously checking Stattracker, cursing the underachieving Bernard Berrian and wondering whether Greg Jennings is invisible and if that's why he never gets thrown to.

Come baseball season, I'll happily spend twenty minutes a day setting my roster, pouncing on rookies only to later discard them like yesterday's blonde, and wishing a slow painful death on my third round pick who was injured six innings into the season.

With this I must balance my outside interests, which unfortunately includes paying occasional attention to law school.

I always thought that never the twain shall meet.

But from the shadows emerged some huge nerd who has wedded these two seemingly disparate activities.

Ladies and gentlemen, Fantasy SCOTUS.

That's right, we have now turned the Supreme Court of the United States into a venue wherein we can pick and choose justices, compete to see who has the greatest predictive ability, and bask in the glory of our opponents' defeat.

Of course, we must reconcile some unappealing facts. Fantasy sports, nerdy to being with, have now been nerded up to an astronomical degree. It's not quite Fantasy Star Trek. But damn.

Nothing illustrates this like the questions one would ask:

Who is the first round pick? OK, granted, in the league you don't pick justices in the traditional fantasy league sense, but you must still decide which justices are the linchpins. Who is going to be the key to more majorities? Chief Justice Roberts? Or Anthony "Swinger" Kennedy? Who is a throwaway vote? Breyer or Ginsburg? Imagine if we had seen this in the heady, unpredictable days of Sandra Day? Will she vote to affirm or reverse? Even the Talented Mr. Roto would cry and hide.

Just what is Clarence Thomas going to do? Will he vote like it's 1868? Or like it's 1789? In other words, will this be the one case each year where Thomas splits from Scalia? And will even Scalia go, "Daaamn?"

Is the Court going to affirm the 7th Circuit in the upcoming Kucana v. Holder, and let us know finally what is the scope of the jurisdictional stripping provision of 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) and whether the statute removes jurisdiction from federal courts to review rulings on motions to reopen by the Board of Immigration Appeals?

Or what about Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha v. Regal-Beloit Corporation, on whether the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, which governs certain rail and motor transportation by common carriers within the United States, 49 U.S.C. §§ 11706 (rail carriers) & 14706 (motor carriers), applies to the inland rail leg of an intermodal shipment from overseas when the shipment was made under a “through” bill of lading issued by an ocean carrier that extended the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), 46 U.S.C. § 30701. Will they affirm the 9th Circuit or remand it for further consideration consistent with the present holding?

Fascinating questions like these will come up every day. Who can resist predicting? Will it be a 7-2 vote? Or a 7-1 vote?

Why 7-1, you ask? Oh, you forgot Sotomayor had to recuse herself because she heard this on the lower court? Well, SUCKS to be you, articles editor of the law review! How does it feel to forget such a simple fact? How does it feeeeel? I did remember because I'm AWESOME. Who da man? Who da man? You can all go SUCK IT.

I need a time out.