There are cases in which somebody has demonstrated just such an outrageous disregard for the bounds of an acceptable decision that you want a measure of accountability.

Lawyers like to leave no stone unturned, provided they can charge by the stone.

Ironically enough, if the case involves race, and one claims that race is a disqualifying factor, nobody could hear the case. Everybody comes to these cases with some preconceptions, and the premise of our judicial system is that judges by training and by ethical codes are obligated to set those prejudices aside and to decide on the facts and the law. And to claim that somebody can't simply because of their racial identity is deeply offensive.

There are cases in which somebody has demonstrated just such an outrageous disregard for the bounds of an acceptable decision that you want a measure of accountability.

We don't want to disqualify individuals who are selected partly because they bring that diverse experience to the court in cases where that experience is most likely to make a difference.

Individuals because of their identity can't render an impartial judgment is just deeply offensive and contrary to all the ideals of the judicial system that we value.

If that were a winning argument, Donald Trump could get anybody off the bench on his cases by just something deeply offensive based on their background.