(02-04-2022 10:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 10:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 09:55 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-04-2022 09:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No, no, no. Don't you understand? The Supreme Court Justices can't have different perspectives because they are all fair and impartial. You know, like little uniform robots who interpret the law in the exact same way...

Since you bring it up again, I'll repeat the question you dodged: the court hands down split decisions all the time - so on what do you base your argument that they "interpret the law in the exact same way", and if by your logic various interpretations would result from diversity, doesn't the existence of split decisions prove that (according to your own logic) sufficient diversity already exist?

No, not in the slightest.

The flaw in your argument is that you're just looking at the outcome of a decision - how many Justices voted one way or the other. That tells one nothing about the reasoning or rationale for the ruling, which is where the diversity of the Court is important, IMO. Theoretically, there could be nothing but 9-0 decisions from a Court full of Justices who were selected from different law schools, parts of the country, of different race and socioeconomic backgrounds, who all came to their decision in a different manner.

In fact, I would hope that a court with more diversity would provide less split decisions as the oral arguments would likely benefit from different styles of questioning. Better oral arguments would potentially lead to more Justices being convinced that one side is clearly in the right or wrong.

edit: to add, perhaps there is sufficient diversity on the Court already. It certainly is not a bunch of old white guys who were born in 1940. The Biden choice is an example of a choice that I would not have made, in regards to limiting the candidate pool, but it isn't one I immediately or inherently disagree with.

You forgot to add 'because it is one for a black, and one for a woman'.

Have I once shied away from stating that I do believe that race and gender are factors that impact one's perspective and experiences?

My perspective is that having a court of diverse perspectives and opinions is beneficial and good. Building on this, there are multiple ways to achieve that goal, one of which is physical diversity (e.g., race and gender). It's not the only one, but I do think it is an important one.

Will it always be the case that it's appropriate to limit a pool of candidates to enhance the court's diversity? No, this action by Biden will not always be appropriate.