In a recent outburst that has both amused and disturbed legal circles, GWU Law professor Jonathan Turley took a bizarre swing at Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, accusing her of playing "Calvinball" with jurisprudence. This term, derived from the whimsical game in the comic strip *Calvin & Hobbes*, where the rules are made up on the fly, was used by Justice Jackson to describe the seemingly arbitrary decision-making of the current conservative majority at the Court.

Justice Jackson’s original comment came as a sharp critique embedded in her dissent on a shadow docket decision, which she argued allowed the administration too much leeway, free from judicial oversight. Her analogy struck a chord, highlighting concerns about the unpredictability and seeming partisanship of recent judicial decisions.

However, Turley’s response, which clumsily attempted to turn the analogy back on Jackson, fell flat. Critics have described his retort as lacking in substance, mostly echoing a playground taunt: "no, you are!" This has led to a wider discussion on the intellectual rigor (or lack thereof) in the current debates surrounding the Supreme Court’s decisions.

Further controversy surrounds Turley’s interpretation of the *Stanley v. City of Sanford* case. He misleadingly suggested that the plaintiff, a retired firefighter suffering from Parkinson’s disease, was unqualified and never sought the position she was discussing, whereas she was actually contesting the sudden withdrawal of agreed-upon retirement benefits. This misrepresentation has been heavily criticized for ignoring the core issues of discrimination and rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Justice Jackson, in her rigorous defense of interpreting laws with an eye to Congressional intent and real-world impacts, stands in stark contrast to what she describes as the majority’s approach of "pure textualism." This methodology, she argues, often ignores broader legislative goals and can be manipulated to support preconceived outcomes.

This legal scuffle has not been limited to scholarly exchanges. In the case of *Trump v. CASA*, Justice Jackson penned a fiery dissent defending the judiciary's role in checking executive power, a principle she argues is crucial to maintaining balance among the branches of government. This was met with a dismissive response from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who criticized Jackson’s perspective as contrary to established judicial norms.

Each of these instances illustrates the deep ideological divide in the Supreme Court and the intense scrutiny its decisions are currently under. As the term "Calvinball" captures the public imagination, it underscores a critical and growing public perception of capricious rule-making at the highest levels of judicial power.

Turley’s attempt to use the term against Jackson may have intended to diminish her critique, but it has instead amplified concerns about the Court’s direction and the integrity of its decision-making processes. As this debate continues, it highlights the crucial role of the Supreme Court in interpreting law and shaping American life, as well as the need for clarity, consistency, and fairness in its rulings.