Someone ought to write a novel about a dystopian future in which leftist ideologues change the meaning of language in order to change truth itself — maybe call it 2020.
Democratic officials and their allies in the press have engaged recently in a campaign to redefine what it means to “pack the court.”
To add seats to a court that can then be filled with judges of one’s choosing — that is the definition of “court-packing.” It has been for the definition for the past 83 years or more.
To fill existing court vacancies with judges, either liberal or conservative, is not court-packing, even though Democrats and their media allies now claim otherwise.
Don’t take my word for it. As recently as Nov. 1, Dictionary.com defined the term “court-packing” thus: “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.”
However, since then, and since Democrats have ramped up their efforts to redefine what they would like to do to the Supreme Court all while incorrectly applying the term “court-packing” to describe the U.S. Senate’s exercise of its constitutional duty to fill existing court vacancies, Dictionary.com has found it necessary also to redefine what it means to “pack the court.”
That the new definition aligns perfectly with Democratic aims is just a coincidence, I am sure.
The site’s top definition now reads, “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.”
That is not what “court-packing” means. Also, “court-packing” does not “typically” involve an increase in the number of seats on the court. It definitionally involves it.
It is not a mistake, by the way, that this organization has redefined “court-packing” to mean a thing it does not mean. The Dictionary.com social media account stated proudly Tuesday, “Language evolves. So do we.”
Similarly, Merriam-Webster amended an entry in October to aid in a specious attack on Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
On the second day of Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearings, the judge used the seemingly innocuous term “sexual preference,” which the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg used in 2017 and President-elect Joe Biden used in May of this year. Neither Ginsburg’s nor Biden’s use of the term provoked criticism. But an MSNBC producer chose to take offense at Barrett’s remark, and, right on cue, Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii raised the issue later during the hearing, repeating the producer’s complaints near verbatim.
“‘Sexual preference’ is an offensive and outdated term, and I don’t think you using it was an accident,” said the senator. “Sexual orientation is a key part of people’s lives.”
Barrett responded, “I certainly didn’t mean and would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community. If I did, I greatly apologize for that.”
After Barrett apologized for using the term Ginsburg and Biden had used earlier, Merriam-Webster updated its entry for the word “preference” to state that the term in certain contexts is now considered “offensive.”
Reworking the language to benefit the needs of a political party. Definitely healthy, normal stuff!
