Well, obviously, it's not wrong to pick the most qualified candidate. The problem is how to define "most qualified." Is it the person who's got the best connections (and will therefore be more likely to fit in best with the other people who are already there), or the one who might be smarter and more experienced?
I don't think that connections make one more likely to fit in well with a Court, although they certainly might influence a particular nomination. Most nominations have a lot to do with whether the candidate will (hopefully) advance the goals of the current president or his party. Experience is certainly an important qualification. See Harriet Miers.
I'd also be grateful if you'd clarify the points you're trying to make instead of linking to a long article. What I pick out as most relevant may not be what you were referring to.
I thought it was pretty obvious by referring to a comparison of ratios, and later on to "one more number", but I aim to please. The current Supreme Court composition has a larger proportion of women than either jurists or lawyers do. If one believes that qualifications are important, that there can be someone who is
more qualified for the job, and that women of equal experience and talent are no more or less qualified to be justices than men, the problem would seem to be too few women in the legal system, not too few women on the Court. The solution is not to force a nomination for a woman at a particular time to the most important position in the legal/judicial system, but to improve the power and presence of women in the system as a whole.
