Despite getting a favorable ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on the ObamaCare case King v. Burwell, MSNBC’s Now host Alex Wagner couldn’t help but take issue with Justice Antonin Scalia as a Justice and the “bitterness and the vitriol” he employed in his dissent. She lamented that it “revealed a deeply emotional, partisan core that informs Scalia's decision making.”
After taking the first part of the segment to talk about the ruling itself with Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro (Texas), Demos President Heather McGhee, and MSNBC’s All In host Chris Hayes, Wagner shifted gears when she turned to Hayes and observed that: “[T]here is something that's very evident from today's decision which is maybe the most important thing post-2016 is the Court, and who sits on it.”
The two low-rated MSNBC hosts then engaged in a brief moment of mocking Scalia’s diction in his dissenting opinion:
WAGNER: I mean, I want to talk a little bit about Scalia and the language that he used that he used in his dissenting opinion, apart from choice phrases like that's pure applesauce, and not argy bargy, that’s a squeeze
HAYES: Argle bargle –
WAGNER – argle bargle, bargle.
HAYES: – jiggery pokery.
The mood turned from that of mockery to one of disdain on the part of Wagner as she decried that the supposed “bitterness and the vitriol” on the part of Scalia:
So, but the bitterness and the vitriol. I mean, at one point he was like, this is an unnatural interpretation of the law and I feel like the phrase “SCOTUScare,” sort of revealed a deeply emotional partisan core that informs Scalia's decision making[.]
Aside from two rulings on ObamaCare, one on fair housing, and one (plus another possibly on Monday) regarding gay rights serving as cases decided in favor of the Obama administration and liberal-leaning allies over the past three years, Wagner still wondered to Hayes “how terrified should people be coming up in the next few years” with regard to the Court’s decision making.
Hayes responded by first joking that Scalia’s dissent in Thursday’s ruling “is an absolutely entertaining read” before further gloating that: “Scalia in dissent is great. Everyone wins when Scalia is in dissent. We get the dissent and he doesn't run the country[.]” Joining in, Wagner added that: “We get all the laughs and none of the consequences.”
Moments later, however, the slight feeling of dissatisfaction caught on with Hayes when he fretted about a possible ruling going against the President’s Environmental Protection Agency and its ability to enact far-reaching regulations: “[W]e still have this EPA case, which – they could, after they find the constitutional right to gay marriage, then just like absolutely put a stake through the EPA’s ability to regulate the air.”
As readers may recall, Wagner’s connections to the Democrats go beyond ideology and down to the personal level. Not only is she married to Obama friend and former White House chef Sam Kass, she’s the daughter of Carl Wagner, who worked for Ted Kennedy’s 1980 presidential campaign and then co-chaired Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 presidential bid.
For more on Wagner and Kass, Matthew Continetti of the Washington Free Beacon wrote an excellent piece on the couple in January 2014 that can be found here.
Whether Wagner is comparing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a villain from Scooby Doo, chiding Rick Santorum for opposing Pope Francis on climate change or describing a protest against illegal immigrants as a “shameful moment to be an American,” it’s clear where Wagner’s views lie and almost comical to admonish Scalia for being a “partisan.”
The relevant portion of the transcript from MSNBC’s Now with Alex Wagner on June 25 can be found below.
MSNBC’s Now with Alex Wagner
June 25, 2015
4:23 p.m. Eastern
ALEX WAGNER: But if it is a straw man, Chris, I mean, there is something that's very evident from today's decision which is maybe the most important thing post-2016 is the Court, and who sits on it, right? I mean, I want to talk a little bit about Scalia and the language that he used that he used in his dissenting opinion, apart from choice phrases like that's pure applesauce, and not argy bargy, that’s a squeeze –
CHRIS HAYES: Argle bargle –
WAGNER – argle bargle, bargle.
HAYES: – jiggery pokery.
WAGNER: Which I know you're prone to use on your show.
HAYES: All the time.
WAGNER: So, but the bitterness and the vitriol. I mean, at one point he was like, this is an unnatural interpretation of the law and I feel like the phrase “SCOTUScare,” sort of revealed a deeply emotional partisan core that informs Scalia's decision making and I wonder –
HAYES: Yes.
WAGNER: – how much – well, when you read that, first of all, what was your reaction, and then as we look at the Court more generally, how terrified should people be coming up in the next few years?
HAYES: Right, I mean, look, the Scalia dissent does a few things. One, it is an absolutely entertaining read.
WAGNER: It's a must read.
HAYES: And Scalia in dissent is great. Everyone wins when Scalia is in dissent. We get the dissent and he doesn't run the country and so, like – it’s like –
WAGNER: We get all the laughs and none of the consequences.
HAYES: He’s sorta at his best in dissent and then also, he’s not making laws. So, like, Scalia dissents – yay. But yes, I mean, look this could have been one of the things that we've seen is, is that Roberts and Alito were, I think, in many minds, in similar places.
WAGNER: Yeah
HAYES: In terms of their judicial temperament and its – there's been a real diversion in the two, Alito looked a lot more like Thomas and Scalia as time goes on. Roberts looks not like anyone else, really. Partly because he's the Chief Justice and managing the Court in a very interesting way, we still have this EPA case, which – they could, after they find the constitutional right to gay marriage, then just like absolutely put a stake through the EPA’s ability to regulate the air.
