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.