As Deborah Rhode describes, “When 1,100 Michigan elementary students were asked to describe what life would be like if they were the opposite sex, over 40 percent of the girls saw advantages to being male; they would have better jobs, higher incomes, and more respect. Ninety-five percent of the boys saw no advantage to being female, and a substantial number thought suicide would be preferable.”

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.

As Deborah Rhode describes, “When 1,100 Michigan elementary students were asked to describe what life would be like if they were the opposite sex, over 40 percent of the girls saw advantages to being male; they would have better jobs, higher incomes, and more respect. Ninety-five percent of the boys saw no advantage to being female, and a substantial number thought suicide would be preferable.”

If you follow Donald Trump's logic, say that he couldn't decide any civil rights cases because he would be biased.I mean, we do want a diverse and inclusive judiciary - one that looks like the people that they serve. And we do recognize the value of having diverse backgrounds represented.

You can understand why the original framers of judicial ethics thought it would be undignified and would call into question the legitimacy of the judicial decision-making process to have mudslinging by judges, but the way that we hobble people of enormous integrity from defending themselves is, I think, deeply problematic in states where you have an elected judiciary, or a judge is subject to recall.

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.

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.