In New York, primary voters elect convention delegates who choose candidates for the judgeships. Once nominated, those candidates run on the general election ballot. In practice, they frequently have no opposition.

Unsuccessful candidates for judgeships and a watchdog group filed a lawsuit challenging the system. A federal district judge and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that it is very difficult for candidates to get on the ballot if they don't have support of the party leaders.

In striking down the system, the two federal courts said judgeship candidates who are not the choice of the party leaders are excluded from elections by an onerous process that violates their First Amendment rights.

The high court on Wednesday reversed the lower courts.

Scalia said there is nothing unconstitutional about the process. The system's opponents "complain not of the state law, but of the voters' (and their elected delegates') preference for the choices of the party leadership," Scalia said.

He said the state legislature is free to return to a primary if it wishes.

Justice John Paul Stevens chimed in with a brief opinion distinguishing between a constitutional system and wise public policy, resorting to the words of former Justice Thurgood Marshall. "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws," Stevens said, quoting Marshall.

Critics have said the conventions are patronage-driven affairs in which allies of party leaders are rewarded with judgeships and all others are shut out.

The appeals court said that between 1990 and 2002, almost half the state's elections for Supreme Court justice — trial judges in New York's judiciary — were uncontested, calling them "little more than ceremony."

The appeals court ordered the state to dispense with the conventions and switch to primary elections until state lawmakers come up with a new plan. Many legal and civics groups have come out in favor of appointing judges in New York.

The U.S. Supreme Court previously has ruled that states can decide whether to use conventions or primaries to nominate candidates. States also can choose to have judges appointed rather than elected.

Margarita Lopez Torres became the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit after Democratic leaders in Brooklyn blocked her from getting the party's nomination for a Supreme Court judgeship. She said the leaders turned against her shortly after her election as a civil court judge when she would not hire people they recommended. Three years later, Lopez Torres said they offered her a second chance if she would hire a leader's daughter. She refused.

The state, the Democratic and Republican parties and the elections board joined to ask the high court to reverse the appeals court ruling. Former New York Mayor Ed Koch was among a diverse group of politicians and legal groups asking the court to uphold the lower court rulings.

The state Legislature adopted the nominating conventions 86 years ago. Lawmakers scrapped direct primaries for New York's Supreme Court justices because of the potentially corrupting influence of having prospective judges raising campaign money. Other judges in New York are elected through primaries.

The plaintiffs have said the current system leads to cozy relationships among judges, lawyers and politicians.

Lawyers for NBC Universal Inc., had asked the high court to overturn a lower court order that the cable TV news network include the Ohio congressman or pull the plug on broadcasting the debate Tuesday night with Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

An hour before the debate, the state Supreme Court's unanimous order said that blocking the debate unless Kucinich got to participate would be "an unconstitutional prior restraint" on the news network's First Amendment rights. The justices also said the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering Kucinich's participation even though he first requested and was denied relief from the Federal Communications Commission.

"It's a matter of being on stage and answering questions. That's the issue," lawyer Bill McGaha argued for Kucinich during a hearing before four justices in Las Vegas. Three other justices participated by closed-circuit video conference from Carson City.

Donald Campbell, a Las Vegas lawyer representing NBC Universal, accused Kucinich of trying to make a jurisdictional "end run" around the FCC and federal courts by suing in Nevada state court to be added to the debate.

FCC broadcast rules do not apply to cable TV networks, Campbell said, adding that forcing MSNBC to add Kucinich or not broadcast the debate amounted to prior restraint and would be a "clear and unequivocal" violation of First Amendment press freedom.

"Mr. Kucinich's claim ... undermines the wide journalistic freedoms enjoyed by news organizations under the First Amendment," Campbell said in his appeal.

Campbell said MSNBC decided to go with the top three candidates after the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. Kucinich drew less than 2 percent of the Democratic vote in the New Hampshire primary, after attracting little support in the Iowa caucuses.

A former office manager for a Columbia law firm pleaded guilty yesterday to stealing almost $706,000 from the company - one of the largest embezzlement cases in county history, according to the state's attorney's office.

Christine McClain-Sloane, 41, used company checks to pay for personal expenses for six of the 11 years she worked at Nagle and Zaller PC, the Howard County state's attorney's office said.

McClain-Sloane pleaded guilty to two counts of felony theft scheme, and Howard Circuit Judge Diane O. Leasure revoked her bail. Sentencing was scheduled for March 28.

The state will ask that McClain-Sloane serve an 18- to 22-year sentence and repay the firm the $705,915, according to the state's attorney's office.

After analyzing the firm's financial and bank records, the state determined that from 1998 to 2005, McClain-Sloane wrote nearly 250 fraudulent company checks and made nearly 1,400 unauthorized personal charges to her company credit card, according to the statement of facts by Senior Assistant State's Attorney Lynn M. Marshall.

The firm's partners discovered that McClain-Sloane had stolen money after she resigned and moved to Lexington, Ky., in 2005, according to the statement of facts.

"This should be a wake-up call to any professionals and business people because what it really is, is a violation of the trust that was given to her," said P. Michael Nagle, founding partner of the firm, yesterday.

"It's really very important for businesses to have safeguards in place, which I did not have in place," he said.

Instead, the Superior Court commissioner heard a day of closed-door testimony from Kevin Federline and witnesses to a bizarre situation this month in which police took the pop singer to a hospital after a standoff in her home when she refused to return the boys to Federline's bodyguard after a visit.

Commissioner Scott Gordon then ruled that a Jan. 4 emergency order suspending her visitation rights and giving custody to Federline would remain in effect. He scheduled another hearing for Feb. 19.

"The word victory is not something Mr. Federline or his counsel would ascribe to this. There is no joy. This is a grave situation for all," Federline's attorney, Mark Vincent Kaplan, said outside the courthouse.

Although Federline thought the ruling was correct, Kaplan said, "his goal, his hope for the future is at some point he will be able to parent the children with the participation of their mother."

Kaplan would not answer questions.

Court spokesman Allan Parachini said those who testified were two Los Angeles police officers; Paula Strong, the court-appointed monitor who was present for the visit at Spears' home; Lisa Hacker, a parenting coach who has been working with Spears and Federline; and Lonnie Jones, the bodyguard.

Parachini did not reveal what the witnesses said during their testimony.

Gordon's order noted that during an officer's testimony there were two exhibits, one described as a photocopy of a police report and the other as a "photocopy of Application for 72-hour Detention for Evaluation and Treatment." All exhibits were ordered sealed.

Neither Spears nor Federline were required to attend, but Federline arrived early, sporting a mohawk-style haircut and dressed in a suit. Spears didn't arrive until early afternoon.

A sport-utility vehicle took her into a civic center garage, but only her attorneys got out before it left. It later stopped outside the courthouse, where Spears got out of a passenger seat and took over the driver's seat. It was not clear in the crush of photographers whether she or a companion was at the wheel when it left.

Gordon scheduled Monday's hearing at the same time he issued a Jan. 4 order suspending Spears' monitored visits with sons Jayden James, 1, and Sean Preston, 2, and giving full legal and physical custody to Federline, who previously had temporary custody.

Gordon issued that order the day after police were called to Spears' home when she refused to return the children to Federline after a monitored visit and officers had paramedics haul the pop star off to a hospital for undisclosed reasons. She was released after a day and a half at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.

Police officers monitoring the paparazzi outside the courthouse warned them to stay on the sidewalk, and several were issued citations for being in the street.

Spears married Federline in 2004 and filed for divorce in 2006. Throughout 2007, her behavior was erratic — and highly public, as a train of photographers trailed her everywhere.

A court ordered her to undergo random drug and alcohol testing, and to temporarily give the boys to Federline. Spears' attorneys asked the court this month to be relieved as her counsel because of a "breakdown" in communication. That motion is scheduled to be heard on Feb. 4.

Britney Spears' effort to regain access to her two small children will go back to court on Monday for what a lawyer described as "the most significant hearing in the case so far".

Police and emergency medical technicians who were summoned to the singer's Los Angeles home on January 3 in a stand-off involving her refusal to return the boys to ex-husband, Kevin Federline, will testify, probably behind closed doors, Mr Federline's lawyer said.

"I don't know if she will be there," Mark Kaplan said, but he suggested she would have to appear in person if she wanted to press her request to see her children.

"You can't phone this one in," he added.

If Spears comes to court, Mr Kaplan said she would be expected to testify. "She will have the opportunity to persuade the court that she can have some visitation under monitored conditions," he said.

Phone and email messages requesting comment from Spears' lawyers were not immediately returned.

Mr Kaplan said he knew it was only a temporary measure when he obtained emergency court orders two weeks ago granting sole physical and legal custody to Mr Federline.

"These are very, very draconian orders," he said. "Because of that the court wanted to have a hearing to give her and her attorneys the opportunity to refute some of the declarations.

"No judge likes making orders terminating a person's involvement with their kids."

Meanwhile, police were preparing for a media frenzy in the downtown Los Angeles civic centre if Spears appeared, issuing warnings that vehicle and pedestrian offences would lead to prosecution.