A Supreme Court Short List (part 2 of 3)

#7, #6, and #5 on my Top 10 list

Yesterday, I explained the unfortunate sameness of current SCOTUS justices and federal appeals court judges. I then described my new system for identifying a different type of highly qualified candidate for the nation’s highest court and began sharing my Top 10 list.

Today I’m going to discuss #7, #6, and #5 on that list.

Scoring Today’s Justices as They Were

But first, I want to briefly answer the question I’ve been asked by several people since I posted yesterday’s piece. They wanted to know how today’s SCOTUS justices would’ve fared on my metrics had they been scored when they were being considered for the Court.

The short answer is: Badly. (That’s why I created this different approach!)

Only two current justices went to a non-Ivy+ for college. Only one went to a non-Ivy+ for law school. None of them went to a public college or law school. Only one had any meaningful state-level experience. Most clerked and then built careers along the Acela corridor. Most of their federal experience was limited to the courts, DOJ, or the White House. Most were judges along the Acela corridor. You get the point. In fact, if I scored each current justice’s resume (at the point of his/her SCOTUS nomination) alongside today’s appeals court judges, only one of today’s justices would’ve cracked my system’s Top 10 (comment below with your educated guess on which one).

OK, back to the list.

The List: #7, #6, and #5

#7. Judge Paul B. Matey

Age: 54

3^rd Circuit (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania)

Born and raised in New Jersey, Judge Paul Matey serves in the circuit where he was shaped. He attended college and law school—both at respected Catholic institutions—close to home, graduating with an undergraduate degree from the University of Scranton (in PA) and a JD from Seton Hall (in NJ). He earned his law degree summa cum laude and was the editor-in-chief of the school’s law review. Matey then built his career in the same region. First, he had two federal clerkships and served as a federal prosecutor in the circuit. He then transitioned to state-level work, serving for six years in the office of his home state’s governor.

Matey’s career (like that of most others on my list) provides a telling contrast to the standard resume of SCOTUS justices and those typically named on SCOTUS short lists. For too long we’ve assumed that the ideal candidate leaves home as an 18-year-old for college and law school at an Ivy and then takes on the expected legal jobs in DC and New York. Matey, however, like so many talented people who care about place, excelled at great schools in his region. And like so many talented people who care about public service and place, he served close to home—as an assistant US attorney in his home state and in the executive branch in his home state. He’s now been a federal appeals court judge in that circuit for six years.

For entirely too long, individuals like this have been undercapitalized—to the detriment of the nation. There should be more justices like Judge Matey.