For those of us who are invested in the reform of politics in Brooklyn — and, for that matter, elsewhere in the city — it was quite a day in Washington, when the Supreme Court sat to hear Margarita Lopez Torres’s case against the State Board of Elections. She was being represented by Frederick A.O. Schwarz Jr. Representing the state was one of the greatest of our constitutional litigators, Theodore Olson. Our Joseph Goldstein, who was in the court, tells us that the justices seemed to signal, from their questions, that they were unconvinced by Judge Lopez Torres’s argument that the party nominating system had denied her a chance at winning a spot on the state Supreme Court in Brooklyn.

Justice Alito, in particular, seemed vexed by the implications of the case for what might be called the right of association. At issue is the rigmarole by which judges are selected in the state. In Brooklyn, as elsewhere, the process begins with Democrats and Republicans heading to the polls to select delegates to party conventions where the party will decide whom it wants to nominate. Once these delegates meet at an annual convention, however, they do few of the things voters might expect. There aren’t many speeches. There isn’t much discussion. There isn’t really any consideration of who the candidates are. Instead the party boss gives the thumbs up — or down — for each candidate, and the delegates follow along.

How much of this ought to be subject to regulation by the state? Judgeships, after all, can be sought via means other than the Republican or Democratic parties. To judge by the way the justices questioned the lawyers before the bench — let us just say it wasn’t Mr. Schwarz’s best day — they are not eager to get into the business of running political party conventions in America. They seem to be of the view that the parties can nominate whom they want to and with as little or as much consideration as the parties wish. The justices’ view seems to be that if an aspiring judge doesn’t like the way one political party is functioning, he or she can work through a different political party.

After hearing the arguments, our Mr. Goldstein wired us this thought: “Lopez Torres is a reminder of how important it is for even the most minor politician to behave correctly.” He called the case “as pure a cautionary tale as the justices must ever have heard. Some political party bosses in Brooklyn behave in a high-handed way, and the next thing you know is the whole two party system in America is endangered.” If the Justices rule as they indicated they would, the message for aspiring politicians in Brooklyn is that you will have to raise your sights, rebuild your parties, or build new ones, or run as independents. And, we would add, advance the ideas you believe in, the most effective weapon against an entrenched status quo.