Eggs, Geese, and Ganders
I ran across a Quora post the other day, responding to the question "why, originalism?" As in, why do some Supreme Court justices hold to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, since the meanings of words evolve over time.
The responder (I didn't think to save the link) noted that all contract law depends on what the words written into the contract mean at the time the contract was executed. Otherwise, the contract would be essentially worthless.
Attached to that response was this wonderful little cartoon.
I have offered this Lewis Carroll quote,
"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."
several times on the blog, as an illustration and mockery of progressives' penchant for redefining everyday terms to fit their latest narratives.
Here: "Democracy"
Here: Political labels
Here: the divide between originalists and "living Constitution" types.
Here: "Terrorism"
Here: "Mass Shootings"
Here: "Automatic Weapon"
Here: "Capitalism," among others.
You get the idea.
The wrinkle today is that, once language becomes fluid, it becomes fluid for everyone.
Of course, progressives would decry that notion, because they reserve redefinition for themselves, and because they don't believe in equality.
Claiming sole ownership of the rulebook is baked into all those redefinitions, and it's why there is so much spluttering outrage when someone claims that Rachel Dolezal has as much right to declare herself black as Lia Thomas to say "I'm a woman."
As Saul Alinsky instructed, "make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say. Especially when they tell us that ganders can also lay eggs.
The Etymological Fallacy is likely not our friend in debate. They STILL believe - and horses, let alone the Supreme Court's Heller decision, cannot pull them off it - that the "militia" clause in the Second Amendment means citizens may only bear arms if they actively serve in the military. We are fortunate, for now, our highest court isn't corrupted and still rules on the basis of original intent.
Peter, I - as well as other people in my community - are presently fighting against a proposed 900-acre solar “facility” (in scare quotes because some people call them, “solar farms,” and they are not “farms” because they do not produce crops or animals.) One of our successful tactics, so far, has been to take our county’s own permit process and insist that the exact wording at the top of the first page - it is in ALL CAPS - be followed. This has bought us time to get better organized, and seek good legal representation. Other counties are also fighting against solar panels. By the way, a 480-acre solar facility two miles from me has made a bad example of what solar facilities are, and we are using that as a tangible showcase of why we don’t want more.