The Supreme Court of the United States must be composed in such a way that it accurately reflects the demographics of the country As the highest court in the land it functions as the final arbiter of justice In a multicultural and multiethnic society with

The author claims that the Supreme Court of the United States must be composed in such a way that it accurately reflects the demographics of the country so that it can fairly represent the views, beliefs, and cultural norms of the United States. While the author provides statements to support her claim, there are jumps in logical reasoning that requires her to address additional questions and assumptions as well as provide evidence so that we can judge the validity of her argument.

First and foremost, the author needs to provide evidence that shows an increase in diversity in the Supreme Court will allow the Supreme Court to better represent the entire country. From a purely theoretical point of view, the statement by itself makes sense. However, good policies do not necessarily translate into good results in the real world. For example, the latest justice appointed to the court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, is a woman. However, liberals might argue that her stance on abortion might infringe on women’s rights. As such, to better support her argument, the author needs to provide us with sample case studies on nations with supreme courts that closely resemble the demographics of their respective countries. If these case studies show that their supreme courts better represent the views, beliefs and cultural norms of the entire country and thus does a better job serving their respective countries, it will give more validity to the author’s argument.

On another note, a hidden assumption that the author makes is that our current homogenous Supreme Court does not do a good job representing our country. Since the opinion of the courts is a relatively subjective topic, her assumption could be a personal opinion and not a factual criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States. As such, further evidence is needed to strengthen her argument. The author could carry out a survey on citizens’ sentiments on the Supreme Court’s performance using a sample population that fairly represents the demographics of this country — be it political ideology, race, religion or gender — so that we can better evaluate whether this is a legitimate issue of concern. If the survey shows that a majority of participants believe that the currently homogenous Supreme Court is doing a great job representing the nation, her whole argument will be invalidated.

Last but not least, the author needs to show whether an increase in diversity in the Supreme Court that better represents the views, beliefs and cultural norms of the entire country is a requirement of the Supreme Court. Ideally, Supreme Court justices should not have political ideologies, views or beliefs. They are generally apolitical and are classified as either textualists or constitutionalists, and their main job is to interpret cases based on the constitution, the law and past precedents. Case in point, many conservatives think Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be too politically liberal and that she might have overextended her responsibilities as a justice. If anything, the House should be composed in such a way that accurately reflects the demographics of the country, as the House passes legislation while the Supreme Court only upholds or strikes them down. As such, the author needs to provide a better explanation as to how a Supreme Court that reflects the demographics of the United States benefits our citizens from a non-ideological and purely lawful perspective. If the author can make a case as to how a non-political but demographically diverse Supreme Court can better serve the interests of the country, her argument would be strengthened.

In conclusion, while the author’s claim is sound from a superficial point of view, it is flawed by the multiple assumptions she holds and lack of evidence she provides. As such, if the author can provide more evidence showing how an increase in diversity in the Supreme Court can better serve the country, how our current homogenous Supreme Court fails in serving the country, as well as whether an increase in diversity can still allow the Supreme Court to be apolitical, her argument will be strengthened and be validated.