Their editorial strikes me as inconsistent. They doubt the justices' integrity under the current regime, and they doubt that Sen. Leahy's proposal -- under which a retired justice would take the place of a recused justice -- will cure things, because they assume that sitting justices will game the system. So far, their underlying concern is that if there is a way to abuse power the justices will utilize it.
But then their editorial proposes that a new panel be created with the authority to definitively overrule the SCOTUS justices on recusal decisions. OK, sounds good, but if we're deeply skeptical of the motives of judges, who gets to overrule that panel when they inevitably abuse their power? (And if you doubt that members of independent panels will have their own motives, read up about Judge Sentelle and the decision to replace the Whitewater special prosecutor with Kenneth Starr.) The bottom line with any way of handling this issue: you have to trust the judge who has the final say. Creating a new super-panel doesn't change the analysis or solve the deeper problem.
The editorial also makes the common mistake of believing that if we make it procedurally and substantively easier to recuse justices, then the courts will be held in higher esteem. But the opposite result may occur.