I have read his recusal (many thanks for the link) and don’t find it compelling. Quite the contrary as he explains why he is quite unlikely to be appointed (age).
Even though he agrees with your technical legal point, and cites his own further elaboration? Even though he explains that he is recusing
... in order that the decision made by my colleagues in this case will not be legitimately challenged by base speculation and groundless innuendo by the partisans in this controversy and beyond.
For others, those who are too lazy to read the linked statement, CJ Young also alludes to the principle of keeping courts out of politics (unless necessary), rather than being quick to jump in as the federal courts did in this case.
You are of course free to disagree with his judgment and decision. I think his statement is compelling and correct, so we part in disagreement. No big deal, such is life.