In the latest round of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the country got a doozy’s worth of linguistic throwdowns from Antonin Scalia, the Court’s longest-serving and possibly most-crotchety justice. His dissenting opinion in King v. Burwell, a ruling on a clause in the Affordable Care Act, referred to the majority’s reasoning as both “jiggery-pokery” and “pure applesauce.” His objection, he wrote, was that the majority relied on an interpretation of the legislative intent behind the law, instead of relying on the text of the law itself.