There were 134 opinions described as sarcastic or caustic, and Justice Scalia wrote 75 of them, more than all the other justices combined. The index took that number and divided it by the number of years the justice has served.

Several methodological objections come to mind. One is that law professors tend to be liberal and so may be more apt to criticize Justice Scalia, a conservative. But the rest of the index is about equally divided between liberal and conservative justices.

Another possible objection is that people repeat the conventional wisdom and reinforce stereotypes. Justice Scalia may be sarcastic in the way President Gerald R. Ford was said to have been clumsy and Vice President Dan Quayle dim.

In an interview, Professor Hasen said he had taken that possibility into account. “My control for that,” he said, “is that I live in the real world.”

Justice Scalia might have a different objection. “I’m a snoot,” he once said.

“Snoots are those who are nit-pickers for the mot juste, for using a word precisely the way it should be used,” he explained.

Professor Hasen, on the other hand, used a broad definition of sarcasm.

“We’re talking about a combination of harsh language and irony,” he said. Many standard reference works agree, defining sarcasm to include hostile or contemptuous remarks.

But Justice Scalia would probably differ, based on a database search that revealed him to be a student of the question. He seemed to define sarcasm in a narrower way, as limited to saying one thing while meaning another.