An animated look at Supreme Court oral arguments about Medicaid expansion between Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Antonin Scalia and Paul Clement. (GoAnimate and Courtroom Sciences Inc.)

Supreme Court obsessives are among us, and the Internet and social media have set them free. They rhapsodize and criticize, revel in arcana, turn the justices’ work into poetry and parlor games.

At Supreme Court Haiku, Houston lawyer Keith Jaasma takes hundreds of pages of opinions crafted by the nation’s most potent legal minds and reduces them to three lines and 17 syllables.

Ryan Malphurs and a company called GoAnimate are opening the doors of the Marble Palace, famously closed to television cameras, by creating an animated courtroom that looks something like “South Park”-meets-Scotus. Anyone with a computer and a few bucks can recreate Supreme Court arguments — or dream up their own scenarios.

Josh Blackman thinks even high school students can predict the outcome of Supreme Court cases. He and others have created an algorithm to forecast decisions, and they have set up Supreme Court fantasy leagues to let thousands of compulsives play along.

The goal, the court fanatics often say, is to make America’s opaque and misunderstood institution a little more accessible, perhaps even a bit more fun.

Malphurs said he hoped the animated build-your-own-argument site will “enable the public to understand the justices and to understand the court.

“We wanted to show the human behavior of the justices. So often they are reified and cast as ideologues instead of showing some of their human nature.”

Some of the attention is devotional — the Notorious R.B.G. Tumblr has celebrated Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “in all her glory,” for more than a year and a half.

Some is simply informational: Since the justices as a rule do not release their public schedules, Scotus Map scours press releases and other sources to track appearances around the globe.

Clickbait Scotus employs a tongue-in-cheek approach to maximize readers for Supreme Court decisions. Thus, a ruling on executing intellectually disabled death row inmates becomes the tweet: “If your IQ is 70, Florida just might try to kill you.”

And at Scotus Humor, Boston University law professor Jay Wexler sends out an up-to-the-minute tally of which justices drew laughs with their questions at oral arguments. (Spoiler alert: Antonin Scalia always wins, and Wexler’s old boss Ginsburg, despite her recent Internet fame, always brings up the rear.)

HBO comedian John Oliver recently staged a replay of a Supreme Court argument in which dogs stood in for the justices. But he is a Johnny-come-lately to the fraternity.

Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law, started his Scotus prediction site because “I thought it would be a fun game for Supreme Court nerds.” He was surprised at how many there were.

FantasyScotus has grown to have dozens of leagues with names such as “Big Dicta” and “You Can’t Handle the Ruth” — another tribute to Ginsburg, it appears — and players can compete for a $10,000 prize.

Jaasma, 45, an intellectual property lawyer, got the bug to have a Web site after he discovered some people actually read his law review articles. (Sample: “Finding the Patent Infringement ‘Mastermind’: The ‘Control or Direction’ Standard for ‘Joint’ Infringement.”

But with a wife and three kids, he did not have much time to spare. “I thought, ‘What’s the shortest thing I can write about the most important thing out there?’” Jaasma said in an interview.

So he settled on 1, the Supreme Court and 2, haiku, the three-line Japanese poetry that in its English version, consists of five syllables, seven syllables, five syllables.

Jaasma is coming up on the fifth anniversary of his Web site, and he has written about every Supreme Court decision issued during that time. When things are slow at the court, he revisits the court’s landmark decisions, including its most important, Marbury v. Madison, which in 1803 established the court as the final word on the Constitution. Or as Jaasma puts it:

Judicial Review

Of Congressional action

Checks and balances

From last term, Jaasma boiled down the court’s decision that some private business owners with religious objections do not have to offer employees contraceptive coverage to this:

Birth control mandate

Corporations are “persons”

Religion burdened

[ Read more of Jaasma’s haiku ]

Jaasma realizes how it looks. In a sly animated movie on his Web site, he supposedly tells a long-lost friend from college about his hobby. She stares, and asks: “Did you start the Web site because you lost a bet? Are you being punished by some secret government agency?”

Malphurs, a litigation consultant at Courtroom Sciences Inc. in Dallas, is the kind of person who plans his year around the Supreme Court’s first arguments of the term. His doctoral studies concerned humor and communication and the court, and he’s written a book, “Rhetoric and Discourse in Supreme Court Oral Arguments.”

Earlier this year, he came across GoAnimate, a cloud-based platform that allows users to create videos by combining audio with animated images in the company’s library. He contacted the company about recreating the Supreme Court and the justices.

The company’s chief operating officer, Gary Lipkowitz, was intrigued; the site already has 10,000 “assets” in its library, he said in an interview, and it supplied characters who looked like President Obama, Mitt Romney and others so people could create their own videos for the 2012 election.

Of the Supreme Court video, he said, “Imagine this in a civics class.”

Malphurs worked with a director and artists creating images of the courtroom: its maroon velvet drapes, the clock above the justices’ heads and the justices themselves. It was a process made more difficult by the fact that, of course, video of the justices at work does not exist.

One artist told Malphurs he wanted to create an image of Justice Clarence Thomas, who does not ask questions at oral arguments, asleep in his chair.

“I said, ‘Look, you’ve got to be really careful there. Thomas doesn’t sleep,’ ” Malphurs said. “In fact, I would say he’s very active and engaged in his own fashion. So let me give you some poses, and we tried to recreate some poses for him.”

Malphurs, a director and the artists created two videos using audio from the court’s consideration of the Affordable Care Act in 2012. His treatment is respectful, although he is sure that will not always be the case.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that tricksters will get a hold of it and have a lot of fun at the justices’ expense in some ways,” Malphurs said.

Blackman also subscribes to the theory that “the more we can understand the court, the better off we all are.” He started the fantasy league predicting Supreme Court outcomes in 2009, not really knowing who would sign up.

He estimates that 25,000 players have participated since then. Through the Harlan Institute, Blackman has created lesson plans for teachers and a prediction contest for high school students.

And this year at FantasySCOTUS, the news service Thomson Reuters is offering cash prizes for the player with the most accurate predictions.

Blackman has his own competition in mind. Along with fellow law professors Dan Katz and Michael J. Bommarito II of Michigan State University, Blackman developed a head-spinningly complex algorithm that they say can predict Supreme Court cases with 70 percent accuracy.

The professors call their algorithm {Marshall}+ after former chief justice John Marshall. Blackman is now recruiting a team of Supreme Court experts to compete against it. He envisions it to be like the time the computer Watson took on the humans in Jeopardy!

But Blackman thinks the contest will be more like a trial run to discover in which kinds of cases {Marshall}+ excels and falters.

For this term, at least, he expects the humans to win.