Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Dictionary.com Changes Primary Definition of ‘Court-Packing’ To Dem, Media Version

Dictionary.com Changes Primary Definition of ‘Court-Packing’ To Dem, Media Version

“Language evolves. So do we,” Dictionary.com tweeted in response to complaints it added an additional meaning to the term “court-packing” that fell in line with how Democrats redefined it two months before the election.

https://youtu.be/uU2tiyvKMeg

After the September 18th passing of longtime Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Trump and Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell both made it crystal clear that a nomination to replace her would be made and that confirmation hearings would be held before Election Day.

The Left Redefines Court-Packing

This enraged the left. And somewhere along the way, calls started for Democrats to pack the Supreme Court if they got the opportunity. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer were among those who said nothing should be left off the table if Judge Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed before the election. Some were even more explicit, calling for “expanding” the Supreme Court.

Such calls presented a big problem for the Biden-Harris campaign and other Democrats, all of whom began to get peppered with questions from the media as to their thoughts on packing the Supreme Court.

At first, many Democrats dodged and weaved on the issue when it came up during interviews. But after reporters grew uncharacteristically relentless in questioning them on the matter – refusing to buy Biden’s ridiculous position on how people would have to wait until after the election to find out his stance, an updated definition of court-packing was created by the left in hopes that the issue could be turned around to make Republicans look bad.

Here’s Biden telling a reporter that it was Republicans who were doing the court-packing by merely filling existing judicial vacancies:

Biden campaign co-chair Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) claimed on CNN’s “OutFront” show in mid-October that it was Republicans doing the court-packing, not Democrats:

On Thursday’s broadcast of CNN’s “OutFront,” Biden Campaign National Co-Chair Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) stated that 2020 Democratic presidential nominee former Vice President Joe Biden “has not dodged the question” on court-packing, “What he has said is he’s not going to answer the question,” and there is a difference between the two. Richmond also stated that “court-packing is when you rush through unqualified judges, 50 judges on the circuit court, and you put not one African-American on the circuit court.”

Delaware Sen. Chris Coons said this about Barrett:

“I’m going to be laying out the ways in which Judge Barrett’s views … are not just extreme, they’re disqualifying,” Coons said of Democrats’ strategy for Barrett’s hearings. “It constitutes court-packing.”

Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono and Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin both also said that filling existing vacancies constituted “court-packing”:

Democratic strategist Leslie Marshall agreed:

Some in the media got in on the gameplaying as to what court-packing actually means, too:

Dictionary Listens to the Left

With all of that in mind, and with also knowing how often dictionary entities like Merriam-Webster have rushed to alter the definitions of words to suit Democratic narratives, it should be a surprise to very few people that sometime within the last month or so, Dictionary.com decided to update their definition of “court-packing” to fall right in line with how the Democrats redefined it in the month before Election Day:

And not only did they update it, but they also made it their primary definition, with the FDR definition on how court-packing has long been regarded as an attempt to add seats to a court being bumped to the second slot.

Because they took a significant amount of heat on the change, Dictionary.com’s Twitter account responded by laughably proclaiming that “Language evolves. So do we”:

This isn’t about language “evolving,” and it’s an insult to the intelligence of anyone reading that to suggest so. This was an obviously partisan move by Dictionary.com to give an assist to Democrats, plain and simple:

Unfortunately, it’s not the first time this has happened, nor will it be the last:

The Orwellian stench is certainly strong these days with these people.

— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Union-of-Taxpayers | December 10, 2020 at 5:41 pm

Orwellian. Big Brother has spoken. Is this really the USA? And how do the people, regardless of party, not see this as degrading to our society. Next, Love redefined as Hate.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | December 10, 2020 at 5:54 pm

DEMS and Commies sure love packing….

Wish they would pack their carpet bags and leave for Uranus…..

Only the beginning of the elimination of the 1st Amendment.
First change the words then make the old illegal and under penalty if used.
Welcome to the brave new world

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | December 10, 2020 at 5:55 pm

Hey, how long has this been going on?

LIVE NOW: Presidential Election fallout and analysis on Newsmax TV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39WrSskl3XE

Look again. The “new” definition is the correct one, what it has always meant. Court packing, according to dictionary.com, means changing a court’s number or composition, typically by adding judges. That’s what FDR tried, and that’s what it has meant ever since.

The only change I see is that their old definition treated it merely as historical reference to one incident long ago, not as something that can happen at any time; in light of the Dem threats to pack the court next year, they changed the definition to include it as an active practice that can be done here and now.

They did not adopt the Dems’ definition of convenience, i.e. filling vacancies in the normal fashion with judges whom they don’t like. Good for them.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | December 10, 2020 at 6:13 pm

    Everyone here knows that semantics is the hill you often choose to die on with lots of vinegar but c’mon.

    If they can call Trump filling a normally vacant seat of the SCOTUS as “packing” then they can justify the abnormal adding of extra seats as “packing” and normalize it. It’s not hard to see what they are trying to do here.

      healthguyfsu in reply to healthguyfsu. | December 10, 2020 at 6:15 pm

      The other thing is that they want to do exactly what FDR did…use “packing” as a threat. Trump did not threaten SCOTUS to rule his way, he just filled seats that were vacant. Democrats have REPEATEDLY from multiple mouthpieces, threatened the court to stay in line with them or they will pack the court and drown the court.

      Milhouse in reply to healthguyfsu. | December 11, 2020 at 1:42 am

      What has any of that got to do with the topic, which is not the Dems but dictionary.com? The Dems falsely accused Trump of packing the courts, while planning to actually pack the Supreme Court by adding justices. Amid all that, dictionary.com did the right thing by adding the correct definition, and not the false one the Dems tried to put over on us. So we should be applauding and thanking dictionary.com, not condemning it!

    henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | December 10, 2020 at 7:05 pm

    Nonsense. The new definition includes “changing the composition of judges on the court”, e.g., refilling existing vacancies. Packing has NEVER meant this. It has ALWAYS meant adding seats.

      Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | December 11, 2020 at 1:47 am

      You are the one spouting nonsense.

      It says “changing the composition of the court“, not of the judges! That means exactly what it says, and it is a common method of packing a court. It certainly does not mean filling vacancies in the normal fashion. Where did you get such an idea?

        EllisWyatt in reply to Milhouse. | December 11, 2020 at 8:18 am

        You are really reaching on this one.

        The quote says “changing the number or composition of judges on a court”

        No one had a problem with FDR changing the ideological composition of the court by filling vacancies that occurred due to the death or retirement of judges. They had a problem with him CREATING vacancies by ADDING SEATS TO THE COURT.

        THAT has been the long-accepted definition of “packing the court”, which Dictionary.com has decided to change.

        henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | December 11, 2020 at 6:37 pm

        Wow, Milhouse, never seen you outright lie before.
        I said, “The new definition includes ‘changing the composition of judges on the court’.”
        You replied, “It says ‘changing the composition of the court,’ not of the judges!”
        dictionary.com absolutely, positively does not say that. That’s an outright lie.

        CapeBuffalo in reply to Milhouse. | December 12, 2020 at 1:42 am

        Reread

I wonder when the Left will redefine murder to be a ‘post-partum abortion’ and demand the ritght to kill as a civil right?

    Nohbody in reply to Idonttweet. | December 11, 2020 at 11:38 am

    They’ll redefine it so when they believe they have secured for themselves the only means of killing other people, by disarming the general populace.

Out-processing Ruth was a blessing. I thank Mitch for his diligent and efficient work in respect of judicial confirmations.

The year is getting shorter and shorter but hope springs eternal. May Jimmy Carter soon share a circle with Ruth and so many other enthusiastic servants of Satan.

Calling all wanna be tech billionaires:

Now that dictionary.com has announced it is bullshit, we need an alternative without bias.

Any takers, who want to join the Parler creator at the marina for yachts?

Words now mean whatever the DNC (AKA, The Party) say they mean.

Make Orwell Fiction Again.

If the money put into ineffective political super pacs or just some of the think tank funds got put into buying places like Dictionary.com we would do a lot better.

There needs to be a note after that definition. “This definition is disputed.”

Shouldn’t the people pushing this have to refer to it as ‘the definition previously known as ….’ like we did with Prince?

I have several hard copy printed dictionaries. Mostly so that a few years/decades from now I won’t forget what words used to mean.

I recommend getting a physical, hold it in your hand, dictionary and then using it. Fuck these on-line assholes.

Insane. Absolutely insane. The enemies of liberty’s plan: 1) disinformation, 2) deception, 3) demoralization, 4) destabilization, 5) created/exploited crisis, 6) government “fix” for the problem, 7) trash the constitution as a document of “negative rights”, 8) normalize to the new tyranny, 9) repeat.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend