MS NOW's Alex Wagner: 'Red Alarm Situation' on 'Partisan Hack' Supreme Court

Appearing as a guest on Monday's All In show, MS NOW political analyst Alex Wagner declared that there is a "red alarm situation" because "conservative partisan hacks" control the Supreme Court as she promoted her new book, The Steal.

As she and host Chris Hayes discussed the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision against President Donald Trump on mail-in ballots, the two spoke about the decade-long push to put more conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court as if it were some sort of nefarious conspiracy, even though liberals have long made their own drive to put like-minded liberals on the courts.

Demonizing four prominent conservatives as the "four crazy horsemen of the apocalypse," she also declared that originalism was just a "Trojan horse" used by right-wingers in their drive to weaken civil rights.

As Hayes recounted the ruling, he singled out Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas as having dissenting opinions, with the MS NOW host declaring that they "would be perfectly happy to just throw the midterms into total chaos and let the USPS decide if you get to vote."

After Wagner complained about "how far right the goalposts have moved and how partisan the highest court in the land has become," the two continued:

HAYES: And it's like the Right realized a long time ago this fulcrum, which is like, if we can get five or six on there.

WAGNER: We're good. They realize, as Reagan rides into office, they say, "We got the executive, we got the Senate. What else do we need?" And they say, "The judiciary, let's go get it." And what begins then is a multi-decade effort to effectively steal the courts.

Without naming them on screen, she referred to there being four conservatives who are "four crazy horsemen of the apocalypse" and lit into Justice Thomas for openly speaking about his personal views in a recent interview:

It is during these years and largely through the architecture of these four crazy horsemen of the apocalypse that I focus on in the book, that the court ends up being a vessel for partisan politics. And look no further than this Supreme Court ruling, where it is the -- first of all, Clarence Thomas was just on Ted Cruz's podcast, openly talking about his conservative values and his distaste and disgust at liberal society and liberal values.

That is a justice of the Supreme Court who joins Samuel Alito in this dissent. And I think that the sort of most piercing line of the dissent is when Alito writes, "The plaintiff states invoke the practical effects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elections. I take that problem very seriously, but it's not enough to convince me to deny the application."

Wagner then claimed, "These are personal vendettas."

After Hayes declared that Justice Alito "sounds like a king," Wagner hyped: "the fact that this is just the arbitrary proclivities of a bunch of conservative partisan hacks who sit on the highest court of the land with enormous power over American public life. I mean, this is a red alarm -- this is a red alert situation."

Concluding her analysis, the liberal MS NOW analyst claimed that conservatives were being phony in declaring that they support originalism:

Be not mistaken, this court adopted originalism as a Trojan horse. As the conservative movement erected it and constructed in the 1980s, originalism and textualism -- this close reading of the Constitution, as the Founding Fathers envisioned it, was a means to a partisan end, which was to find a way for the courts to unwind decades of civil rights and social progress. The idea that this court cares about the Constitution is a joke.

Transcript follows:

MS NOW's All In

September 14, 2026

8:41 p.m. Eastern

CHRIS HAYES: So, as we reported at the top of the show, just moments before we came to air, the Supreme Court issued its decision -- its temporary decision, but it will matter for the next 50 days -- on Donald Trump's attempt to restrict mail-in voting for the upcoming midterm elections. It appears for now that millions of Americans who vote by mail can breathe a sigh of relief. That's the sort of takeaway headline. In an unsigned order, the court denied the Trump administration's request to essentially lift a lower court's block of a new rule that would have given the postal service the ability to veto basically whoever they want from getting a mail-in ballot.

In a short, unsigned order, the court writes, "The application for stay presented to Justice Jackson and by her referred to the court, is denied. The government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the district court's preliminary injunction. And the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this court do not favor a stay." In other words, "No dice, Donald Trump."

Now, the only signed concurrence came from Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who signals he's open to Trump on mail-in voting, but "Hey, the timing is bad -- this is a bit rushed," writing, "In my view, based on the briefing the court has received at this interim stage, there's at least a fair prospect the final rule falls within the postal service's statutory authority, but applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections."

In other words, "Maybe you could do this legally, but you can't do it now -- it's too rushed." And, of course, there are two public dissents from, you guessed it, Justices Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas, who would be perfectly happy to just throw the midterms into total chaos and let the USPS decide if you get to vote. Alex Wagner writes about the right-wing capture of the courts in her fantastic new book, The Steal: Four Right-Wing Hardliners, One Republican Presidency and the Raid on America's Courts. She's a senior political analyst for MS NOW, host of the Runaway Country podcast on Crooked Media, and she joins me now. It's good to have you here.

WAGNER: What a night to be talking about the Supreme Court.

HAYES: So this is so fitting. By the way, your book is phenomenal, and I -- it was a history that I thought I knew, but I realized I didn't knew, and I -- know -- when I read it. Like, I learned a lot from it, going in thinking I knew stuff about it.

WAGNER: I think it's -- I think it's essential reading, but I do think it's really enlightening reading as we look at the Roberts court and what it's doing. And a day like today is a great day to preorder the book, but also to understand the context between what -- what used to transpire in terms of court business and how far right the goalposts have moved and how partisan the highest court in the land has become.

HAYES: And also how insanely powerful it is because what you feel tonight is all the lower courts of different ideological valences have looked at this and said, "No, you can't let the postal service just decide not to give people their ballots.

WAGNER: Trump appointees.

HAYES: Trump appointees who said -- what did he say? "It exceeds" -- what was the quote? "It exceeds even the outer bounds."

WAGNER: Yes.

HAYES: Right? "Of the authority." And then all of us sit here and go, "Well, okay, but is the Supreme Court going to let him do it?" And it's like the Right realized a long time ago this fulcrum, which is like, if we can get five or six on there.

WAGNER: We're good. They -- they -- they -- realize, as Reagan rides into office, they say, "We got the executive, we got the Senate. What else do we need?" And they say, "The judiciary, let's go get it." And what begins then is a multi-decade effort to effectively steal the courts. And we are, you know, I focus a lot on the Supreme Court. And that's obviously the most glaring example we have today. But also just to inject partisan politics into the entire federal judiciary. Judicial, judicial nominations did not used to be these kind of Sturm and Drang affairs that involved cable news coverage and --

HAYES: Right.

WAGNER: -- you know, orchestrated national ad campaigns. It is during these years and largely through the architecture of these four crazy horsemen of the apocalypse that I focus on in the book, that the court ends up being a vessel for partisan politics. And look no further than this Supreme Court ruling, where it is the -- first of all, Clarence Thomas was just on Ted Cruz's podcast, openly talking about his conservative values and his distaste and disgust at liberal society and liberal values.

HAYES: Right.

WAGNER: That is a justice of the Supreme Court who joins Samuel Alito in this dissent. And I think that the sort of most piercing line of the dissent is when Alito writes, "The plaintiff states invoke the practical effects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elections. I take that problem very seriously, but it's not enough to convince me to deny the application.

HAYES: Right.

WAGNER: These are personal vendettas.

HAYES: Wow, that really sounds like a king, doesn't it? "It's not enough to convince me."

WAGNER: Not enough -- and even Kavanaugh, I mean, effectively says this is something Trump can do, which means everybody should be on the lookout for similar attempts ahead of the 2028 presidential elections, right? This is not the end of this -- this battle, but the fact that this is just the arbitrary proclivities of a bunch of conservative partisan hacks who sit on the highest court of the land with enormous power over American public life. I mean, this is a red alarm -- this is a red alert situation.

HAYES: So -- but on the other side of that, at least, right, like, you know, there's this funny saying in Russia -- "Tomorrow will be worse" -- like, right, which is, but at some level it's like, well, but this --  I was genuinely worried this was going to, they were going to give the green light, even though everyone was telling me, "This is so preposterous, it so obviously exceeds their statutory authority, it has constitutional problems, it has problems because it's so rushed."

WAGNER: Merits, merits, merits.

HAYES: Right. But they did do the right thing here, right? So like there's still something there. And in some ways it's like, it's what you're saying. It's an alarm, but it's also a window in the fact that like, there's still something binding part of it.

WAGNER: Vestiges -- vestiges. Be not mistaken, this court adopted originalism as a Trojan horse. As the conservative movement erected it and constructed in the 1980s, originalism and textualism -- this close reading of the Constitution, as the Founding Fathers envisioned it, was a means to a partisan end, which was to find a way for the courts to unwind decades of civil rights and social progress. 

The idea that this court cares about the Constitution is a joke, that they are strict adherents to the Founding Fathers' vision. This is a great example of this. On its face, the Constitution is quite clear that the running of elections is not the job of the federal government. And the fact that you have three conservatives on the court effectively saying, "Well, if the timing was better, we'd be fine with it."

HAYES: Yeah, that's a good point. That is a very, very good point.