I think the author may be getting a bit too defensive of his work here - not that he doesn't have a right to defend it, but he may be seeing attacks on it where they don't really exist.
It's exceedingly common for Supreme Court justices to ask controversial questions they think/know others will have, regardless of their own opinions - many times you will see them ask questions or dig in to areas that are in direct contrast to their leanings.
The reasons for this are two-fold. First, these are Supreme Court Justices; their opinions become law, and they have a responsibility to understand both sides on an argument. Second, they understand that it's best for the court and the country if controversial/questionable things are brought up and addressed in session rather than debated endlessly after their decisions are issued.
In short, don't read too much in to what questions the justices ask, or what aspects of a case they question...
It's exceedingly common for Supreme Court justices to ask controversial questions they think/know others will have, regardless of their own opinions - many times you will see them ask questions or dig in to areas that are in direct contrast to their leanings.
The reasons for this are two-fold. First, these are Supreme Court Justices; their opinions become law, and they have a responsibility to understand both sides on an argument. Second, they understand that it's best for the court and the country if controversial/questionable things are brought up and addressed in session rather than debated endlessly after their decisions are issued.
In short, don't read too much in to what questions the justices ask, or what aspects of a case they question...