As soon as John Roberts was confirmed as the new U.S. Chief Justice, speculation immediately turned to whom President Bush would nominate to the next slot on the Supreme Court.

News stories and commentary focused on a number of experienced female judges as well as a handful of prominent Hispanic officials, both within and outside of the judiciary.

This reflects the idea that Bush will be compelled to add a much-needed level of diversity to the High Court.

Diversity is important. But it also goes beyond gender or ethnicity.

The goal of diversifying the court rests in the idea that every jurist brings his or her life experience to the bench, and to the work at hand.

The controlling element, of course, should be the law and the Constitution. But time has taught us that both statutes and the Constitution itself can be read differently depending on one's life experience.

It is clear that Justice Thurgood Marshall was shaped by his life experience and his struggles in the civil rights movement. And that Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Ginsburg, whatever their political differences, also bring a perspective based on their gender to the deliberations of the court.

President Bush surprised some when he chose John Roberts first as O'Connor's replacement and then as Chief Justice. The expecta-tion was that he would go with someone far more overtly ideological, in the mode of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, both of whom he admires.

With Roberts, Bush set a good standard. If the President meets the challenge of diversity and at the same time finds someone with the new chief justice's apparent respect for constitutional integrity, the Court and the country will have been well served.