A popular online dictionary is being criticized for updating its definition of “court packing” to a description some feel is more favorable to the process of adding Supreme Court justices.
“@Dictionarycom redefined the word sometime between Nov. 1 and Dec. 1, according to @waybackmachine,” J.D. Graham tweeted on Tuesday in response to a post about Democrats potentially stacking the Supreme Court.
@Dictionarycom redefined the word sometime between Nov. 1 and Dec. 1, according to @waybackmachine.
Latest capture on 11/1: https://t.co/3MdrEMAmnx
Capture on 12/1: https://t.co/q9R17iwUP7 pic.twitter.com/r3vrAlMVHU
— J. D. Graham (@jd_graham_) December 8, 2020
Initially, the website defined “court packing” by referencing President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s desire to add up to six justices to the Supreme Court.
“An unsuccessful attempt by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937 to appoint up to six additional justices to the Supreme Court, which had invalidated a number of his New Deal laws,” the first definition said.
The updated definition referred to the term as “the practice of changing the number or composition of judges on a court, making it more favorable to particular goals or ideologies, and typically involving an increase in the number of seats on the court: Court packing can tip the balance of the Supreme Court toward the right or left.”
Dictionary.com responded to Graham’s tweet by saying, “Language evolves. So do we.”
Language evolves. So do we.
— Dictionary.com (@Dictionarycom) December 8, 2020
The term “court packing” has become more prevalent over the past few months after Democrats first accused President Trump of doing so by nominating a replacement for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Democrats then threatened to pack the court by adding seats if they take control of the Senate in January.
The change and the company’s response drew criticism on Twitter from those who feel the new meaning was politically motivated.
“Indeed, language evolves organically over long periods of time,” National Review’s David Harsanyi wrote. “It does not miraculously transform one day after 60 years during a presidential election to comport with the new definition a political party has whipped up. Dictionaries are a resource that allows people to find out the meaning of words. They do not get to invent new meanings.”
“Dictionary, can you tell me he definition of ‘Orwellian?’” tweeted Matt Whitlock, a senior adviser for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “Court packing has meant the same thing for a 60 years. Changing *definitions of words* to fit the political points of bad-faith lunatics is an absolute TERRIBLE precedent.”
Dictionary, can you tell me he definition of “Orwellian?”
Court packing has meant the same thing for a 60 years. Changing *definitions of words* to fit the political points of bad-faith lunatics is an absolute TERRIBLE precedent.
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) December 8, 2020
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture repainted, every statue and street building renamed, every date altered,” National Pulse’s Raheem Kassam tweeted, quoting George Orwell’s 1984. “History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture repainted, every statue and street building renamed, every date altered. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right. https://t.co/VVROkLCGUx
— Raheem Kassam (@RaheemKassam) December 9, 2020
Dicitonary.com did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Washington Examiner.

