The Democratic party yesterday asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to permit them to replace Sen. Torricelli on the ballot, after he quit the race. Megan McArdle thinks that their arguments were outrageous. So much so that it's apparently beneath her dignity to say why she disagrees with all seven justices of the court, six of whom were appointed by Republican Christie Whitman. I sense a touch of hubris.
This comes after Andrew Sullivan came out opposing the move because it would deny voters the chance to express what they thought of Torricelli.
But what I can't figure out in all this fracas is why no one has considered the solution that played out well enough in the Washington DC Mayor's race --- run Lautenberg as a write-in candidate, and be sure that poll workers are very well informed about write-in procedures. Which would allow the Republican party to express what they think of allowing the voters meaningful choices, and would allow voters to express exactly what they think of the party that's trying to deny them a choice on the ballot. But then again, the one is happening anyway... and so, one way or another, will the other.
The closest thing Megan has to an argument is the complaint that the Democrats were asking the court to "overturn the law by fiat." Actually, they were asking the court to overturn the law because its application would conflict with constitutional principles. Which is generally the job of any body which calls itself a "Supreme Court".