[coloradan]

Does the fact either Biden or Reagan chose or will choose a justice based on intersectionality guarantee that the chosen candidate will be less qualified? No. But does it make it more likely? Yes. If one deliberately chooses to exclude a large pool of candidates, namely, of men (for Reagan) and of women of all races except black, and men of every race (for Biden), there is a probability that a superior candidate exists but will be excluded. The probability increases the larger the excluded pool becomes, and becomes a near-certainty as the still-eligible pool shrinks to just a few people.

The only way to be sure that one appoints the most-qualified candidate is to consider the qualifications of every single candidate, with no arbitrary exclusions.

Unless, of course, your “qualifications” include who they are - i.e. you want “a nation of men, not of laws”. (Again, apologies to feminists.) Then, and only then, you appoint people based on who they are, rather than how qualified they are or how they will rule.

[MarvinStinson]

“The only way to be sure that one appoints the most-qualified candidate is to consider the qualifications of every single candidate, with no arbitrary exclusions.”

[DoodleDawg]

But does it make it more likely? Yes. If one deliberately chooses to exclude a large pool of candidates, namely, of men (for Reagan) and of women of all races except black, and men of every race (for Biden), there is a probability that a superior candidate exists but will be excluded

So what you are saying that it is impossible for a woman or a minority to ever be a superior candidate to a white male? What sets that criteria? The only way to be sure that one appoints the most-qualified candidate is to consider the qualifications of every single candidate, with no arbitrary exclusions.

What makes a single candidate the most qualified?

Unless, of course, your “qualifications” include who they are -

Like yours do?