You have an argument in favor of this?
The article you cited doesn’t offer much.
It quotes “Dan Glickman, a former secretary of agriculture and former congressman,” but even he says:
A diversity of law school background does not guarantee a diversity of personal experience, but more likely than not it does create a deeper reservoir of personal experiences and relationships.
Which doesn’t say much.
Moreover, when this “former secretary of agriculture and former congressman”
retired from national politics, do you know where he went right away? Yes, he became a fellow at Harvard.
Your article offers one other sort of argument:
In 1970, Sen. Roman Hruska defended high court nominee G. Harrold Carswell against the charge that he was mediocre. “There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They’re entitled to a little representation, aren’t they?” Hruska said.
A nice joke but further comment seems unnecessary.
Anyway, going back to Dan Glickman’s remark:
A diversity of law school background does not guarantee a diversity of personal experience
That’s exactly right.
To put some “diversity of personal experience” on the court, imagine electing a president and Senate who’d confirm any of the following:
-
Someone whose background is neither Christian nor Jewish; maybe a Muslim or a Buddhist or an atheist.
-
Along the same lines, someone whose family background is Chinese or Indian or Iraqi or – wait for it – mixed.
-
Someone whose sexual orientation is not the same as all the others.
-
Someone who maybe isn’t even a lawyer at all – but who knows how to hire good clerks.
I could continue but I think the point is clear enough. If you want diversity, there are more effective ways to go about achieving it than to complain about Harvard and Yale.
That said, I repeat:
You have an argument in favor of [your suggestion]?