"Diversity" on the Supreme Court

On October 31, 2005 White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan had
a press briefing. You will recall that this was shortly after President
George. W. Bush had announced Judge Sam Alito as his new nominee to the
Supreme Court. During this meeting with the press, one of the reporters
posed a very provocative question to Mr. McClellan.

Q: Why did the President give up on diversity on the Court? He used to say that was important. Is he satisfied with the diversity --

Diversity
on the Supreme Court. Lets look at that idea for a moment. What exactly
do we want the highest court in our land to do? What types of decisions
do we want rendered by this Court, decisions from which there is no
appeal?

Now it would seem obvious to me, that with the perfect
Supreme Court, we would have 9 Justices who would render unanimously on
every case in favor of the side that is right. Shouldn't that
be the ideal? Justice sides with those that are right, 100% of the
time? This seems self-evident. The problem comes up (and it is a
complex one) with deciding what "right" is. Thats why we have courts in
the first place, to settle disputes about who is "right." Now that
could become a lengthy discussion, but for the purposes of this debate
and the Supreme Court, lets just define "right" as the decision God
would render if he were directly making the ruling. However, since we
cant agree on what exactly He would do, we rely on the opinion of the
majority to determine what is "right." This is a very important
concept, and it is the foundation of any democratic system (such as our
government.) It is also the cornerstone of the Supreme Court- The
majority renders the binding decision.

On the Supreme Court,
our goal should be to have those who will be able to discern the proper
"right" the greater percentage of the time. The more times they get it
right, the better. And since there is only one "right" on any given
case (at least there is a best decision), the idea of "diversity" on
the Supreme Court by definition goes against this ideal.

So each
person develops an idea of what he himself thinks is right, then casts
his vote for that Presidential nominee who he thinks will nominate
people to the Supreme Court who will support his own personal ideal of
"right." Thus, the majority rules, and society has the best chance of
administering justice properly.

Look at what the Democratic
leadership has been saying about the recent nomination. They are
calling for a "mainstream" nominee, one who can "unify" America. They
are saying Judge Alito is too "right-wing." What they are saying is
that the Supreme Court should represent each faction and belief system
in America. We should have one atheist, one Catholic, one Republican,
one Democrat, ect. In this way, they postulate, each group can be
represented and every one is happy. This is clearly the opposite of the
ideal we should be pursuing, that I have outlined above.