Northwestern law profs Steven Calabresi and John McGinnis make the argument for McCain in today’s Wall Street Journal. Admitting that Romney can be trusted at least as much as McCain on judicial appointment, they argue strictly from McCain’s alleged electability. But relying as Calabresi and McGinnis do on polls nine months before the general election about who is more “likely” to beat whom is a well-established blunder, as Mark Levin has not tired of pointing out on The Corner. Campaigns matter, and Calabresi and McGinnis, who know a lot about the law and the judiciary, shouldn’t claim to have a crystal ball about this election.

And one more thing: when Calabresi and McGinnis claim that the Gang of 14 bargain “played an important role in ensuring that Samuel Alito faced no Senate filibuster,” they make a simply insupportable claim, as I think Ramesh has pointed out on The Corner.