“Court packing” means different things to different people. It just so happens that to a lot of liberals, it means the wrong thing.

When Donald Trump took office and Mitch McConnell got to work filling judicial vacancies, liberals and Democrats — including many Democrats who knew better — cried “COURT PACKING!”

And apparently Bloomberg Law — or at least a pair of alleged law professors writing for Bloomberg Law — has decided that that’s reason enough to effectively change the term’s definition:

Shorter Bloomberg Law: “Not packing the courts is literally court packing; literally packing the courts is not court packing.”

The Party of Science™ is just straight-up making stuff up now.

Where does it end?

For what it’s worth, the authors of the piece concede that packing the court “would further politicize the judiciary and invite retributive court packing when Republicans inevitably regain power.” And yet, in the same piece, they argue that increasing the number of SCOTUS justices to 15 would actually mitigate potential ideological extremism. A more politicized judiciary would also be less vulnerable to the whims of ideological extremism?

So basically they’re just throwing stuff at the wall hoping something’ll eventually stick.

Whoa … let’s not get carried away.