Strategy Workshop

Advanced tools for framing constitutional arguments and developing persuasive legal strategies.

Argument Framing

Frame your constitutional arguments for maximum persuasive impact across different judicial philosophies.

Originalist Framing

Historical meaning and Founding Era intent

Effective for Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch

Textualist Approach

Plain meaning of constitutional text

Effective for Gorsuch, Barrett, Kavanaugh

Pragmatic Framework

Real-world consequences and practical outcomes

May appeal to Kagan, Roberts

Justice Targeting

Tailor your arguments to specific justices' judicial philosophies and concerns.

Conservative Block5-6 votes likely
Swing Justices2-3 votes possible
Liberal BlockCross-appeal needed

Strategic Recommendation

Focus on securing Roberts and Barrett while providing cross-ideological appeals for liberal justices.

Precedent Analysis

Analyze relevant precedents and their application to your case.

Supporting Precedents

  • • Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) - Religious education
  • • Church of Lukumi (1993) - Religious targeting
  • • Fulton v. Philadelphia (2021) - General applicability

Opposing Precedents

  • • Employment Division v. Smith (1990) - Neutral laws
  • • Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) - Public health

Persuasion Metrics

Track the persuasive strength of different argument strategies.

Historical Arguments92%
Textual Analysis88%
Practical Consequences75%
Policy Arguments45%

AI Strategic Recommendations

Primary Strategy

Lead with historical religious liberty arguments emphasizing Pennsylvania's colonial experience.

High Impact

Secondary Approach

Frame as abstention claim rather than accommodation demand to appeal to liberal justices.

Medium Impact

Fallback Position

Argue narrow application to insular communities if broad religious liberty fails.

Safe Option