Here, via How Appealing.

Some of the criticism comes from Charles Fried, former SG under Reagan:

Scalia’s tone this year, particularly in cases involving the Obama administration, is raising new criticism over the temperament of a justice who has always relished the give-and- take of the Supreme Court’s public sessions. Some lawyers say Scalia, a 1986 appointee of Republican PresidentRonald Reagan, is crossing the line that separates tough scrutiny from advocacy.

“His questions have been increasingly confrontational,” saidCharles Fried, a Harvard Law School professor who served as Reagan’s top Supreme Court advocate. While the justice has always asked “pointed” questions, in the health-care case “he came across much more like an advocate.”

I know I’ve mentioned Justice Scalia’s use of advocates to state his position (sometimes in a less than successful way), but it seems to me there’s nothing that says he can’t do whatever he wants on the bench (short of outright abuse or something).  I bet many (most?) advocates think Justice Scalia’s open and direct questioning is helpful in that it may draw out some of the other Justices’ views and allow for greater engagement with the Justices in the middle on a particular issue. It’s certainly a lot more helpful to the advocates than Justice Thomas’ remarkable swell of silence.