In the last point in my “Far From Sober” essay, I noted that Bazelon and Lithwick had failed to provide any link demonstrating their supposed support for Justice Scalia’s decision not to recuse in the energy policy task force case (and that Lithwick had in fact called for Scalia’s recusal). Following the publication of my essay, Bazelon and Lithwick added a link, but the linked article—an essay by Lithwick—doesn’t support their claim. Lithwick’s essay defends Scalia’s non-recusal in Lawrence v. Texas—it was written nearly a year after the Court’s ruling in that case—but states that “he ought to think seriously about staying out of the Cheney appeal, based on his cavortings with the vice president.” Some defense.
Why can’t Bazelon and Lithwick just acknowledge their error on this tangential point? Perhaps because once they begin to hold themselves to a minimal standard of accuracy, their entire essay collapses.