As Twitchy reported, Rep. Jim Jordan on Monday asked in a tweet why Democrats won’t admit that they want to pack the courts. Playboy senior White House reporter Brian J. Karem replied Tuesday, tweeting, “Why won’t the GOP admit they DID?”
Even before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, liberals have been accusing Republicans of “packing the courts” simply by filling vacancies with conservative judges. It was a nice distraction from Joe Biden’s refusal to say if he’d consider packing the court — i.e., adding seats to the Supreme Court and appointing enough liberal judges to tip the ideological balance.
They're still pretending that "packed the courts" means something totally different than what it actually means. https://t.co/JRvFFQL4EB
— Noam Blum (@neontaster) December 8, 2020
J.D. Graham noted that Dictionary.com literally did change the definition of court-packing sometime between November and December.
@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
Court-packing used to be defined as “an unsuccessful attempt by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937 to appoint up to six additional justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, which had invalidated a number of his New Deal laws.” However, the dictionary added a second definition: “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.”
Recommended
No, there’s nothing “typical” about increasing the number of seats on the court. That’s court-packing. Dictionary.com responded:
Language evolves. So do we.
— Dictionary.com (@Dictionarycom) December 8, 2020
OK, social media intern.
— Noam Blum (@neontaster) December 8, 2020
Dictionary dot com’s social media intern explains why you should never use their service.
Block their site. https://t.co/u67q2Xo7Wb
— The Dank Knight ? (@capeandcowell) December 8, 2020
Way to destroy your credibility.
— 5PointSlo (@5PointSlo) December 8, 2020
The language didn't evolve in this case. You altered it to make it mean something less damaging to Democrats.
— Physics Geek (@physicsgeek) December 8, 2020
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
Amazing how often your definitions "evolve" in one particular direction.
That said, this isn't language "evolving" at all. A few weeks of misuse does not constitute an evolution. This is you adding purely partisan commentary to your definition. Shameful.
— Nick Hlavacek (@NickInNC) December 8, 2020
“We make shit mean what we need it to mean for the moment”
— SweetTaterPie (@1911SP) December 8, 2020
I see you "evolved" your site logo recently as well, but I think this adjustment would have been a little more on-brand: pic.twitter.com/dWsLxPT2nR
— Matches (@Matches10) December 8, 2020
Looks like you’re going to have to change the definition of “evolves” while you’re down there.
— GregEsq (@GregEsq) December 8, 2020
Evolution doesn't occur over a matter of a few months though. Prior to September court packing was rarely used to refer to any scenario other than one party expanding the number of justices.
— NC Optimist (@NC_Optimist) December 8, 2020
Mysteriously recent definition changes were all done to benefit the current left wing twitter narrative. Curious how that is. Can you define what evolution is? Because it used to mean unguided changes. I wonder if you redefined it too.
— hexadecimal.delirium (@hexadecimaldel1) December 8, 2020
And it's just kind of a coincidence that it evolves at the exact speed as DNC talking points?
— David Eric Kelly (@Lt_Buckets) December 8, 2020
When someone tries to "evolve" language in the middle of a debate, that's called "shell game", "moving the goalposts", and/or "Motte and Bailey".
It's a blatantly-dishonest attempt to transfer support/opposition to the term under the initial definition to the new definition.
— The “President Elect” Monster (@SumErgoMonstro) December 8, 2020
Fancy way to say you're untrustworthy as a reference.
— Verbastardy (@verbastardy) December 8, 2020
Marxists love redefining everything.
— Cecelia Mc (@CeceliaMcC11) December 8, 2020
I evolved to using a different dictionary.
— TheDruminator (@druminatorlive) December 8, 2020
This is double-plus ungood
— schmeez (@schmeez_) December 8, 2020
You realize that people go to you to find meaning right? The definition you added is more appropriate for court expansion. But instead of letting an erroneous fad fade into history you enshrined it into the dictionary. This is weak, irresponsible and counterintellectual.
— BahZam (@bmzambrano) December 8, 2020
— Riley Brewer (@rileybroor) December 8, 2020
Employment evolves. You’re fired.
— RocinanteRider (@Bringer_of_It) December 8, 2020
Related:
Playboy’s star WH reporter Brian J. Karem asks Rep. Jim Jordan why the GOP won’t admit to packing the Supreme Court https://t.co/FY8C0cFLun
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) December 8, 2020
Join the conversation as a VIP Member