(02-03-2022 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Because there are still different lived experiences, especially when one takes race into consideration. Those lived experiences impact one’s views and perspectives. And I have to imagine that interprets one’s interpretation of the law in how it relates to the American people.

But as has been noted, there are blacks and women on the court already... Adding a woman makes sense as we are 'behind' the proportional population, but another black jurist would over-represent them relative to the population. I know that Asians, Indians and Pacific Islanders not only don't have representation now, but NEVER have had representation on the court. I suspect but haven't looked that Hispanics are also under-represented... but that may be tainted by being in Texas. Plenty of other demographics/ lived experiences aren't represented. Heck, hardly any legal educational diversity is represented.... or much court diversity...

This is an example. You're defending Biden making a clearly race based decision, but I can't even find compelling evidence in your argument to support it. If lived experiences and diversity of perspectives and legal interpretations are the goal (which I agree with) then why are you not arguing AGAINST a list that ONLY includes 'black females'? Not against them meaning they can't be considered, but against excluding all of these other UNrepresented lived experiences related to all of the specific issues YOU YOURSELF mentioned?