July 15, 2015

Source: Shutterstock

It’s official”€”words no longer have meaning.

As a proud member of society’s educated, progressive elite, I”€™m thrilled. Since Bill Clinton famously disputed the definition of the singular third-person present form of the verb “€œto be,”€ many of us have looked forward to a time when all words would be rendered completely meaningless. Thanks to Chief Justice John Roberts and his recent King v. Burwell ruling, that dream has finally been realized.

See, for too long we have allowed “€œwords”€ and their “€œmeanings”€ to obstruct us on our quest for social justice. The long, slow march to the Utopia of American Socialism will never end if we have to rely on “€œwords.”€ There are simply too many of them and they all mean different things. That’s why this decision is so powerful”€”the “€œwords”€ are still there, but they no longer “€œmean”€ anything beyond what we want them to mean.

“€œJust imagine what we can accomplish if we strip the meanings from all words we find inconvenient.”€

It now no longer matters that the Affordable Care Act clearly stated that those redistributive insurance subsidies only apply to purchases made on state-run exchanges, a point readily acknowledged by SCOTUS care architect and social-justice Übermensch Jon Gruber. We couldn”€™t change the words that make up the text of the law. But we could change the meanings of those words, and thereby manipulate the meaning of the law for our own ends.

Incredibly, the Supreme Court of the United States totally agreed! By this ruling, “€œstate”€ now means “€œstate or federal government.”€ It might just as easily mean “€œtyrannical Oligarchy,”€ or “€œleague of asexual little people.”€ In fact, “€œstate”€ can mean whatever we need it to mean at any given time. The implementation of American law is now akin to a game of Constitutional Mad Libs.

But why stop there? Just imagine what we can accomplish if we strip the meanings from all words we find inconvenient. Indignant that your Christian bakers refused to cater your gay wedding? Sue them for “€œmental rape,”€ and then have your judge redefine “€œfreedom of speech“€ to forbid them from speaking out about it. Worried that your local housing authority is secretly pursuing “€œracist”€ policies? Redefine “€œstatistical anomaly”€ to mean “€œracism”€ and voilà, you”€™ve got a “€œdisparate impact“€ ruling. Have a neighbor you believe harbors antiprogressive sentiment? No problem”€”just redefine “€œHate Crime”€ to mean “€œThought Crime”€ and with any luck, you”€™ll soon be able to have him or her shipped off to a state or federal government reeducation camp.

This shows the potential a ruling like this can have. “€œUp”€ can mean “€œdown”€; “€œleft”€ can mean “€œright”€; “€œYou can keep your doctor”€ can mean “€œNot really”€; “€œlower costs”€ can mean “€œinflated prices”€; the list is endless.


Sign Up to Receive Our Latest Updates!