OF COURSE we all “Bring our life experience” into the courtroom. That in itself is neither good nor bad.

The question is whether this life experience is used to help determine the truth about the facts and the law, or whether “experience” is a euphemism for “helping people like me instead of being impartial”.

Other things being equal — if judicial experience, talent, etc., are equivalent — I would like a supreme court which is diverse in race, sex, and life experience. Why? Because different life experiences, ideally, mean that different points of view will help determine the truth. Remember the scene in “12 Angry Men” where the man from the “lower orders” who knows how a pocket knife is used gives essential facts to the rest of the jurors?

The problem is when diversity becomes the ONLY criterion — trumping both judicial prowess and the desire for finding the facts. It is the usual case of turning the less important criterion into the all-important one.