If you reformulate the question correctly, it will sound like this: "Is it possible to judge a literary competition and not become a profane or a scoundrel?" Experience shows that, whatever the outcome of a literary competition, there will inevitably be ideological competitors or simply offended writers who will write the jury members as profane or scoundrels. Competitors - into profane, offended - into scoundrels. After all, only a layman or a scoundrel could not appreciate the verses of a long-or shortlisted so-and-so, could it? And what is the use of such a competition - they are generally of little use. After all, literature is not a hundred meters.
Competitions and contests have a threefold goal: to please the audience, achieve high results and earn money. The question is, is it possible to achieve this goal if the jury is lousy? The extreme answers are: no, the audience will be unhappy, there will be no records, no money; or - no matter who is on the jury, the goal will be achieved. Between the extreme answers is the correct one, there are many shades. I didn't understand Lev Oborin's answer.
Well, for example, we will find out what the laymen and scoundrels like. In principle, no competition is needed for the first point: just look at the sales ratings of the most popular cultural products. And with the rascals, the problem is that it is difficult to find universal rascals: for someone they will always be good. Theoretically, it is possible to hold a music or literary competition in which the judges will be, for example, serial killers serving life imprisonment, but what will it give us, besides, perhaps, a blotch on the bloody horror "Bitsevsky maniac approves"?