Credit: shutterstock

Recent news stories about parents purchasing college admission for their children dismayed many Americans. Parental privilege-purchasing is pervasive. It now begins before birth, as parents procure genetic advantages via IVF's embryo sorting, or by shopping for high-echelon eggs and sperm. Yet, purchased privilege feels distinctly un-American.

The admissions scandal caused me to consider whether New Jersey judicial nominations resemble the college admissions process.

To begin with, both processes are shrouded in secrecy. In his candid 2017 Insider NJ article, “How to Become a Judge,” State Senator Kevin O'Toole confirms that most judicial nominations derive from political connections. One might suspect that these political connections derive from, or are reinforced by, political contributions. If so, the conduct of aspiring judges seems similar to that of parents of college-bound youths.

I have also heard that demographic characteristics influence judicial nominations. If so, New Jersey not only has identity politics but also an identity-driven judiciary.

Compared to the above-listed influences on judicial nominations, merit seems to carry much less weight. But marginalizing merit has high costs.

Initially, many attorneys have encountered unnecessarily imperious and hostile judges. Some judges fail to heed Senator O'Toole's admonition to be humble because “you didn't take a test, you knew someone, you were political.”

Hostility reflects bias. Bias impairs justice.

A self-aware high school coach once told me that the hardest thing about coaching was that “Every year I have a few players that I don't like as people. But it's my job to be fair to them.”

Unlike this coach, who took no oath of impartiality, some duly sworn judges fail to put personal feelings aside in order to apply the law to the facts. Judges appointed based on political connections or demographic characteristics seem especially likely to be biased. Tribalism begets tribalism. Outsiders are readily perceived and mistreated.

Further, many judges clearly do not read the briefs and exhibits that attorneys submit. Judges frequently ask where the support for a given fact or argument might be found, even when that support is expressly emphasized in the papers submitted. Others rule without addressing solid arguments that have been presented.

Ultimately, unfair judges subvert democracy and citizens' rights. I used to represent, without pay, low-income clients. The last time I won such a case, a County Court judge denied me the fee mandated by 42 U.S.C 1988. By so doing, one individual nullified an Act of Congress. Consequently, I no longer represent indigent people. While there are some fair, thoughtful judges, there are too many who are biased and not scholarly. Collectively, substandard judges make it impossible to predict litigation outcomes and to counsel clients.

The judicial nomination process could be vastly improved by adopting two elements of the college admission process. First, any high school student can apply to any college. Why are thousands of qualified, experienced and respectful attorneys excluded from applying for judgeships?

Second, the college admissions process is heavily influenced by objective credentials, especially SAT scores. Why not, as Senator O'Toole obliquely suggests, require all judicial applicants to take a standardized test, such as the Multistate Bar Exam? Testing would objectively reflect knowledge of the law, intellect and preparedness. If we require teens to prove their worth in open, tough and ostensibly fair competition, why shouldn't judicial candidates do the same?

Unlike college students, judges make decisions and drive settlements that strongly influence many people's lives. Life, including college admissions, is not always fair. But judges should be.

Mark Oshinskie has ceased practicing law and now serves the New Brunswick community without appearing before New Jersey's courts.