Law Professor (University of Tennessee) Benjamin Barton thinks the Supreme Court needs diversity along many more dimensions than just race and sex, ostensibly to avoid groupthink.
Given that every justice is already a lawyer, it makes sense to try to diversify across other educational, geographic, and experiential axes.
Barton’s entire argument is a non sequitur.
The Supreme Court needs “diversity” far less than it needs Justices who will adhere to their oaths of office to defend and uphold our Constitution and to apply the laws equally to all Americans, without regard to any elements of “diversity.”
The Supreme Court needs Justices, in particular, who will accept the requirement of our Constitution’s Article I, Section 1, and who will rule based on what the Constitution and the statute before them in a particular case actually say, and not based on a Justice’s personal views of society’s needs.
Society’s needs are political matters that are solely within the provinces of the political branches of government and of We the People who elect the members of those branches. It is, after all, We the People who are society and so are the arbiters of our needs, and it is We the People who implement satisfaction of our needs through our individual actions and with the votes we cast to elect our representatives.