I was thinking about John Roberts and diversity on the Supreme Court today. I've written about this before and I really don't want to rehash it. But, as the White House prepares to nominate someone else to the Supreme Court I can't help but think it's a shame that how someone looks is the only diversity that seems to matter. Even someone like Alex Kozinski would be branded as "just" another white male. No notice would be taken to the fact that he grew up as the son of Holocaust survivors behind the Iron Curtain in Romania. And that's not just a superficial difference either. It's easy to see how Kozinski's experiences as a child helped to shape his libertarian view of the law.

But back to Roberts. On the surface he really does have a similar background to the rest of the Court: boarding school, Ivy League undergrad, Harvard Law, law clerking, appellate court appointment. But dig a little deeper and think about some of the cases the Court may be asked to hear during Roberts' tenure. Roberts and his wife couldn't conceive a child. They adopted two children (one who famously couldn't stand still during his introduction). As reproductive science and ethics collide, isn't it important to have someone on the Court who has felt the pain of infertility?

That's really only a little tongue in cheek. What I think the President should do is approach this the way you'd fill any job. You'd find the best candidates and then interview them to determine who's the most passionate about the job, who will add the most to the rest of the team and who is the most interesting person. It seems pretty simple to me.