Andrew Sullivan notes that a lot of commentators missed Justice Thomas’s point in choosing the words “uncommonly silly” to describe the Texas sodomy law. Thomas was quoting Justice Stewart on Connecticut’s anti-contraception law in Griswold, and drawing a parallel between the two cases. Sullivan writes, “[T]hat reference appeared to fly well over the heads of most of the media, me included.” Pundits cannot be expected to wade through the entirety of every Supreme Court decision on which they comment. For them to do their job right, people earlier in the media food chain have to do theirs. Justice Thomas’s reference to Stewart was explicit. Would it have been so hard for the news reports to have noted it rather than to have quoted Thomas without that context?