Impeached 2 is an armchair politician's dream. Play today!

In a turn of events that would make even the most seasoned political satirist raise an eyebrow, the United States Supreme Court has found itself embroiled in a heated contest not over a constitutional dilemma, but rather over the ownership of a popular mobile strategy game, "PoliTactics: United States."

The game, which allows players to simulate managing the country's political landscape, from passing legislation to conducting international diplomacy, has unexpectedly become a flashpoint in the nation's capital. The controversy arose when it was discovered that the in-game algorithm, which assigns players roles as either the President, Members of Congress, or Supreme Court Justices, had inadvertently crowned a player from the state of New Jersey, known in-game as "Garden State Guru," as the de facto Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The real-life Justices, who had been quietly competing among themselves for political clout within the game, were outraged. Justice Thomas Fist (not to be confused with the actual Justice Clarence Thomas) was particularly incensed, having been relegated to a secondary role after a series of poor in-game decisions. He immediately called for an emergency session to address what he termed "the greatest constitutional crisis since the actual impeachment of President Andrew Johnson."

The session, held in the ornate chambers usually reserved for matters of national import, devolved into a schoolyard brawl of political one-upmanship. Arguments ranged from the legality of in-game purchases to the interpretation of the game's terms of service, with Justice Fist at one point threatening to issue a writ of certiorari against the game's developers if they did not rectify the situation forthwith.

Meanwhile, the President, known in the game as "Commander-in-Tweet," weighed in with a series of tweetstorms, urging his followers to "take our country back from the gamers!" His Vice President, "Veep of Victory," issued a statement claiming that the game was a threat to national security and vowed to "level up" the situation with executive action.

As the nation watched in bemused horror, the Supreme Court, with the assistance of an amicus curiae brief from Silicon Valley's tech giants, began the arduous process of determining whether or not an algorithm could, in fact, impeach a virtual Chief Justice. Legal experts were split, with some arguing that the game was a perfect simulation of political life and thus any actions taken within it should be respected, while others maintained that it was a frivolous use of the Court's time and resources.

In the end, the Court, in a split decision that mirrored the polarized state of the nation, ruled that while the game was indeed a serious educational tool, the role of Chief Justice was not transferable to the digital realm. The "Garden State Guru" was allowed to keep their title, but only as a testament to the game's ability to simulate the complexities of governance, not as a legitimate claim to judicial authority.

As the dust settled and the Justices returned to their traditional robes and legal texts, the nation could not help but wonder: if a mobile game can spark such a furor, what does the future hold for the real political landscape? And more importantly, which of our elected officials will be the first to press "level up" in the face of actual adversity?

Can't get enough of politics? Play Impeached 2 and become President of the U.S. today!

This article was automagically written, and intended only for entertainment purposes.