>>I also judge things other than the economy. I see a more diverse federal bench. I see increased equality for LGBT folks. I see a lot of people with health insurance who didn't have it before. (And yeah, it could better if Congress hadn't obstructed fixing the initial flaws in the program.)
>>
>Is a "more diverse federal bench" a measure of the effectiveness of the Supreme Court?
>
>The bible says "By their fruits ye shall know them."
>It doesn't mention diversity.
>
>A bunch of white men changed history by integrating our schools.
>Has any court - however diverse- since then matched the magnitude of that decision?
>
>Of course we liberals want all groups to get a fair shake - even an extra boost for those who have been wronged in the past- but ultimately capability must trump identity or we'll fail.
>

Of course, capability matters. But to imply that we can't have capability and diversity suggests that only white men are capable. There's actually a fair body of research now that says that diverse groups do better at decision-making because they bring diversity of experience and ideas to the table.

More to the point, the story I linked about Ginsburg and the strip search decision is an example of why diversity matters. I think, in the opposite direction, the case that invalidated part of the Voting Rights Act is an example of how lack of diversity hurts. 4 white men (and 1 black man who seems determined to undercut other black people) said that there are no issues around voting rights any more. Since that decision, state after state after state has acted to restrict voting rights. Fortunately, the lower courts mostly aren't letting them get away with it.

I started reading Ari Berman's "Give Us the Ballot" this morning. After a few pages, I found myself wishing I could ask John Roberts if he still thinks that pre-clearance isn't needed any more. (Unrelated to this discussion, Berman's description of Bloody Sunday and what followed had me in tears.)

Tamar