Report comment

What bothers me most is that a Judge of the sagacity of Hale, the fact that she is a woman is irrelevant to her argument, should see that the Judiciary would be "better" by having more women.
There is no empirical evidence to support that assertion.
A suggestion that a judiciary should reflect a numerical balance of sexes, colours, sexual mores and anything else that might ostensibly differentiate a group from another, does not make a judge or the overall group " better". It might appeal to a Social Anthropologist but it doesn't validate a bald allegation of improvement.
It might help if Lady Hale defined what, precisely, she sees as her prime function. I suspect that it may not be "judicial" but rather "political".