Conservative jurisprudence increasingly resembles Calvinball, applying principles like textualism, originalism, or historical tradition selectively to reach desired outcomes. The Calvin & Hobbes game Calvinball had no fixed rules, and that satire has been repurposed as a guiding philosophy by organizations like the Federalist Society. The pattern appears in recent Supreme Court rulings, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson using the Calvinball comparison in her dissent in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Assn. The Court has crafted ad hoc explanations—such as permitting certain presidential removals while shielding others—that reveal inconsistency in legal reasoning.
For those who missed the cultural reference because their childhood was crushed under Ayn Rand book reports, Calvinball was a recurring game in the iconic Calvin & Hobbes comic strip with no fixed rules other than the rules can never be the same twice. Bill Watterson invented the game as satire. The Federalist Society took it as a guiding philosophy.
Between me and Liz Dye, Above the Law has referred to late stage conservative jurisprudence as "Calvinball" at least eight times and a number of other publications have also used the term. It's a powerful distillation of the mentality behind any juridical approach that respects precedent... until it doesn't. Sticks strictly to the text... until it doesn't. Or privileges ideas "deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition"... until it doesn't.
Collection
[
|
...
]