...
By Anna Rahmanan
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
In the 90s, 4 o’clock belonged to mothers. The house would smell of reheated coffee as children came home from school and, while dinner was being prepared in the kitchen, in millions of living rooms, a small woman in a lace collar began deciding who was lying. Somewhere between snack and dinner, mothers would revel in the small woman's presence as she restored, for 22 minutes, the fantasy of consequence.
Here was Judith Sheindlin, a former Manhattan family court judge better known to America simply as Judge Judy, snapping the room into shape. She was maternal only in the older, less sentimental sense of the word. There was no soft-focus reassurance and no promise that everybody's feelings were valid. She arrived on television more like the weather: brisk and unavoidable, distinctly capable of ruining your afternoon if you had come unprepared. She handed down real judgments and treated excuses as small acts of insolence. One of her most famous admonitions—and the title of her 1996 book—supplied the governing meteorology: “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.”
Judge Judy arrived in syndication in 1996, and by the late 1990s Sheindlin was already conquering the hours once ruled by soaps and talk shows. In Los Angeles, her show helped KCAL’s daytime lineup surge in the ratings; years later, Judge Judy would become a fixture of the 4 p.m. hour in major markets, including New York, Chicago and Boston. Television then had an appointment-book quality that streaming has almost erased. Remember when you watched what was on?
Read More on Analysis
Sheindlin, for her part, has proved more adaptable than the medium that made her famous. Judge Judy ended its original run in 2021, but she promptly migrated to streaming with Judy Justice. That show ends in October, while Sheindlin remains an executive producer of Adam’s Law and is developing Judyverse, an animated project inspired by viral AI-generated “Baby Judge Judy” videos. Her representative has described the moment as “not retiring, just rewiring.”
A new generation of mothers can now watch practically anything while warming a bottle, including old clips of Judge Judy herself. But those inclined to preserve the afternoon ritual have been offered an almost comically literal succession plan.
On Monday, Adam Levy premieres as the presiding judge of Adam’s Law, a nationally syndicated courtroom show created by his mother. In some markets, including Atlanta, the program even occupies the old 4 p.m. territory. Levy is hardly being dragged from the family Thanksgiving table and deposited behind a television bench. He has more than 25 years of legal experience, served two terms as Putnam County district attorney in New York and has already appeared as a judge on Tribunal Justice and Justice on Trial.
...
Still, the arrangement has the pleasing indiscretion of an old dynasty: mother built the kingdom, son gets a piece of it, everyone involved appears perfectly comfortable saying so.
And here Judge Judy has stumbled onto something larger than daytime television: America dislikes aristocracy so much that it rejected the titles, the coronets and the hereditary offices, yet remains remarkably good at reproducing their underlying advantage. Political families produce politicians, Hollywood families produce actors, wealth produces access, access produces opportunity and opportunity is subsequently retold as individual achievement. We have developed an Ameristocracy while maintaining a national allergy to calling it one.
But the Sheindlin version feels refreshing, perhaps because of the absence of camouflage. Nobody is asking viewers to believe that Adam Levy materialized from a nationwide search, armed only with talent, grit and a dream. His mother made the empire, opened the door and he happens to have the résumé to walk through it.
Is this nepotism? Probably, but the more useful question is what kind of advantage is actually being exercised, and how openly.
Why does this type of naked nepotism, declared in daylight, feel less offensive than privilege passed off as merit?
The Honesty of the Family Business
CBS Media Ventures is leaning into the inheritance, describing the premise as Sheindlin “pass[ing] the gavel to her son.” There has been no elaborate exercise in meritocratic theater and no suggestion that Levy’s parentage is an amusing coincidence discovered only after the paperwork was signed. We’re all in on this.
But candor does not turn nepotism into meritocracy.
Related Story
Macklemore Exposes the Political Fiction of Ed Sheeran
Related Story
Measles Is the Deadly Disease of America’s Trust Crisis
Related Story
Trump’s AI Gamble Breaks His World War III Rule
“Transparency does not change whether nepotism occurred,” Constantin Lagios, a researcher at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, told Newsweek. “If a family relationship influenced the decision to provide someone with a job-related opportunity, nepotism is present whether or not it is acknowledged.”
What candor can change is the audience’s reaction. “When a family tie is concealed and later revealed or discovered, observers are likely to respond more negatively because the role of the family relationship was not openly acknowledged from the outset,” Lagios said. “Disclosure makes the process easier to evaluate, but it does not make the outcome more merit based.”
That distinction helps explain why the Sheindlin succession can feel unusually unobjectionable without actually becoming more equitable: the advantage is visible. Nobody has been asked to mistake it for a level playing field.
Levy also complicates the easiest objection to nepotism: that the beneficiary must therefore be undeserving.
“Family ties and actual competence are not necessarily mutually exclusive,” Lagios said. “Nepotism does not mean that the beneficiary is unqualified: someone can be highly capable and still receive an opportunity partly because of a family relationship.”
The harder fairness question comes after competence has been established. As Lagios put it: “When the beneficiary performs well, the objection is no longer necessarily about competence, but rather about the opportunity that other candidates never had in the first place.”
Levy therefore presents a useful test because he can simultaneously be qualified for the job and advantaged in getting it.
The Ameristocracy Prefers a Meritocracy Story
Americans remain deeply attached to the idea that achievement ought to be earned, even as 78 percent say connections are important to getting ahead professionally. More than a third say they themselves have benefited from a relative or friend connecting them with a job opportunity.
It’s not hypocrisy in the clearest sense of the word; it’s more of an acceptance that private advantages are okay until they collide with the public story we tell about how success works.
There is also a distinction between ordinary family help and nepotism itself. Parents routinely give advice, introductions and professional guidance to their children, advantages that can compound over years without determining who ultimately gets hired.
Lagios draws the line at who controls the opportunity.
“Advice, mentoring, and access to professional networks can create advantages without constituting nepotism per se,” he said. “They may improve someone’s odds of being considered, while leaving the final decision to someone outside the family. Nepotism arises when a parent or relative holds meaningful influence over the selection, promotion, or allocation of resources and uses that influence to favor a family member.”
...
That makes the Sheindlin example more interesting than a simple argument over whether parents should help their children. The question is how much power accompanies the help and how honestly that power is described.
The British have at least developed magnificent costumes for their success stories. The monarchy makes no meritocratic claim about its central organizing principle as succession to the Crown proceeds through descent under rules set by statute. Prince William does not need to produce a résumé explaining why, after an exhaustive search, Britain has discovered that the person best qualified to succeed Charles III happens to be his eldest son.
But America abolished titles far more successfully than it abolished dynasties.
Although transparency does not make an unfair system fair and openly announcing an advantage does nothing for the equally talented person who never gets the introduction or TV pilot, something about Sheindlin’s naked nepotism feels okay.
Lagios’s distinction helps locate why: the candor does not erase the advantage but it removes the pretense surrounding it.
In a way, Judge Judy’s succession becomes instructive rather than exculpatory: candor cannot erase inherited advantage but it can strip away one of its more irritating disguises.
Sheindlin is offering no grand theory of American inequality. She has simply produced a remarkably legible example of how inheritance often works: here is the famous mother, here is the qualified son, here is the door she can open for him. Nobody has confused the door with destiny.
For Adam’s Law, the remaining judgment belongs to viewers. Television, unlike a monarchy, retains one wonderfully crude meritocratic mechanism: people can change the channel.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines