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.

Thurgood Marshall because of his experience of discrimination did bring a special perspective to the court. That’s what his colleagues on the court so valued him for as all the tributes pouring in after his retirement attested.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There's a sorry history of these kinds of charges of bias being leveled at women and judges of color, and also gay and lesbian judges. The theory being that they're going to be incapable of a disinterested judgment on matters that involve their own identity groups. And it came up famously for Constance Baker Motley who was one of the first African American federal judges in a case involving sex discrimination.