The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the GOP's appeal regarding the last-minute substitution of Frank Lautenberg for Robert Toricelli. I'm not surprised, this isn't the sort of fiasco that the court would want to get involved in.

But there are some other interesting notes on this whole debacle.

First, the Washington Post has a story in Sunday's paper entitled "Other Than Republicans, Few in N.J. Feel Outraged."

Is this true? Not according to a Quinnipiac University poll.

When asked whether it was fair for Lautenberg to replace Torricelli on the ballot, 54 percent in the Quinnipiac poll said no, but only 30 percent said they would not vote for Lautenberg because of the switch.

...

"New Jersey voters don't like the way Lautenberg got on the ballot, but they are glad to see tarnished Sen. Robert Torricelli gone," (Clay F.) Richards (assistant director of the Quinnipiac Polling Institute) said. "And one in five of those voters who say a last minute candidate switch is unfair say they will vote for Lautenberg anyway."

Last I saw, New Jersey wasn't a 54 percent (hardcore) GOP state. (Thanks to Henry Hanks for the heads-up on the poll.)

There's also a couple of interesting articles on the issue over at National Review Online.

The first, by Dave Kopel, suggests that a Democratic ploy to bypass the 2002 senatorial election in New Jersey would be unconstitutional. I doubt that Democrats would try to pull this fast one. If they did, I don't think even the N.J. Supreme Court could condone it.

The second article, by Todd Gaziano, says that New Jersey's old 51-day rule was simple enough that even a 7-year-old could understand it. He thereby pinpoints the average age of the court's justices at *holds up 6 fingers* "this many."