By David Harsanyi
Tuesday, December 08, 2020
During a recent social-media spat over the meaning of
“Court-packing,” an intrepid person named J. D. Graham got onto
the Wayback Machine and found out that sometime between November 1 and December
1, 2020, Dictionary.com, whose “proprietary source is the Random House
Unabridged Dictionary,” changed the meaning of the phrase.
Here it is before:
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.
Here is the addition:
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.
“Language evolves. So do we,” was the reply
from Dictionary.com.
Indeed, language evolves organically over long periods of
time. It does not miraculously transform one day after 60 years during a
presidential election to comport with the new definition a political party has
whipped up. Dictionaries are a resource that allows people to find out the
meaning of words. They do not get to invent new meanings.
“Court-packing” is still apparently a politically toxic
phrase. Democrats have tried to claim Republicans are “packing the courts” by
accusing them of getting elected and nominating and confirming judges for
vacant seats, using the very same method that duly elected officials have been
relying on since the beginning of the republic. But “Court-packing” has a
specific historical implication, and many people rightly still see it as an
unprecedented abuse of power.
Of course, I get why some Democrats want to change the
definition, but it’s somewhat remarkable how institutions are willing to
destroy their credibility by doing this sort of thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment