Not since a kosher poulterer named Joseph Schechter went to the Supreme Court and overturned the New Deal have New Yorkers stood before our nation’s highest court with as much at stake for our city and country as in the case we cite as Spitzer v. Lopez Torres. This is the lawsuit in which the state Board of Elections, various political officials, and Mr. Spitzer in his capacity as attorney general of New York are seeking to overturn a lower-court order that New York nominate judges for elective office by holding open primaries. The order was won in lower courts by Margarita Lopez Torres after she was shut out in her quest for a state Supreme Court judgeship by the Brooklyn Democratic Party machine; she is now a surrogate judge. Judge Lopez Torres won the first round of appeals before the riders of the Second United States Circuit. Mr. Spitzer and other opponents of Judge Lopez Torres’ reforms have just gained a hearing before the nation’s top court.

This is one of those cases that have enormous implications locally and the potential for broad national impact. Even as the Supreme Court was granting certiorari to Mr. Spitzer and the other opponents of the reforms Judge Lopez Torres seeks, the ex-head of the Brooklyn machine Democrats, Clarence Norman, was on trial in Brooklyn in a prosecution that underscores the urgency of the case. And even as the Supreme Court was preparing to act, Mr. Spitzer was moving out of the job that got his name attached to the most significant anti-reform effort in the state — and hatching plans to move the selection of judges out of the hands of the voters entirely. The idea is much like his bid to wrest the appointment of the state comptroller away from the Legislature.

So let us just say that the justices of the Supreme Court have their work cut out for them. Currently in New York, state judges are nominated to the November ballot during conventions that occur in September. Judge Lopez Torres says these conventions are dominated by party leaders. She went to court and won an order from Judge John Gleeson of United States District Court in Brooklyn to end the convention system. In its place, the judge ordered that all candidates would run in general, open primaries like the rest of state office-seekers. The state Board of Elections and the various parties asked the Supreme Court to intervene and uphold the nominating conventions.

The opponents of reform are not without their arguments. For all the high-minded rhetoric of Judge Lopez Torres, it can be argued that she was not so much shut out by the Brooklyn machine as that she failed to run an effective campaign. That is, the argument goes, her failure to win the party’s support indicates she was unable to woo enough party members. It can be argued that this is a question of politics, as American as apple pie and a slice of cheddar. The argument reckons that federal courts should not be open for losing candidates to grouse about their failed campaigns. On a higher plane, it can be argued that the nominating conventions that are at issue are a model of republicanism. The fact that delegates to judicial nominating conventions are kowtowing to party leaders, this argument holds, reflects the quality of our local political leaders, not any lack of fairness in the system.

Judge Lopez Torres, however, is not without her arguments; just ask the Second Circuit. New York’s system for electing judges to the state Supreme Court is arcane and open to abuse, something that has certainly been established in Brooklyn. Candidates for judgeships do not have the right even to address the delegates whose support they seek. Party leaders, such as the disgraced Clarence Norman, exercise what may be undue influence in the selection of judges. Because many counties in New York are dominated by a single political party, the party leader ends up choosing who gets a judgeship. It may look like classical republicanism, but in practice it facilitates cronyism and corruption. America’s Constitution was written by practical persons. So why not hold open primaries and allow the voters to decide? Or allow the head of the executive branch to nominate judges subject to legislative confirmation, a system that works well enough on the federal level.

We don’t mind saying that we think the Supreme Court is going to need all its vaunted brainpower to sort this one out, particularly because what it decides can become precedent for the whole nation. But we also don’t mind saying that, by our lights, either system in the case before the court is better than the plan being sought by Mr. Spitzer now that he is governor. His new scheme is that judges would be named by a camarilla whose members would send the names up for final approval by — wait for it — the governor. In the case of Mr. Spitzer’s bid to name the comptroller, a panel of so-called experts picked three persons. One happened to be one of the governor’s closest cronies, whose business partner lent his jet to the governor during his campaign. In other words, Mr. Spitzer has not emerged as the most credible advocate for the system he wants. Fortunately, Mr. Spitzer’s scheme would require amending the state constitution. That’s not an easy thing to accomplish in New York, and either of the options before the Supreme Court would be better for New York and the nation.