When the Supreme Court put up resistance to the New Deal, Franklin Roosevelt threatened to pack it with as many puppet justices as necessary to approve of his leftist transgressions against the Constitution. Now the Democrat Party has been radicalized as never before. It hopes to exploit COVID-19 as FDR exploited the Great Depression. Once again, it has threatened to pack the Supreme Court to eliminate resistance to an unconstitutional agenda. When liberty-loving Americans objected, the likes of Dick Durbin, Mazie Hirono, Chris Coons, and Joe Biden responded with the absurd but well-coordinated talking point that Republicans pack the court by appointing conservatives to fill vacancies.

This redefinition of the term court-packing is now official Newspeak, thanks to the apparatchiks at Dictionary.com. Just as Merriam-Webster leapt to redefine “sexual preference” and “racism” for nakedly politically reasons, Dictionary.com has perverted the definition of court-packing to make it easier for Democrats to employ this tactic if Georgia lets them take control of the Senate.

Most of us use words to communicate. Democrats and their enablers use them to dissimulate.

Until last month, Dictionary.com defined court-packing like this:

1 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.

Now the primary definition reads like this:

1 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:
Court packing can tip the balance of the Supreme Court toward the right or left.

The sample sentence underscores that they are using a familiar liberal tactic: claim everybody does it. However, the right consists of conservatives, and one of the main things conservatives want to conserve is our system of government, which will be seriously undermined if Democrats destroy the independent judiciary. Another thing that should be conserved is the integrity of language.

1984 isn’t the only work of British literature that liberals use as an instruction manual. Sometimes they rely on Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass:

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’

Progressives have made it clear lately that they intend to be masters.

Hat tips: Legal Insurrection, J. D. Graham.

Comments are closed.