The Supreme Court has repeatedly asserted that adefendant is not entitled to a j

The Supreme Court has repeatedly asserted that adefendant is not entitled to a jury composed in whole or in partof persons of his own race. (Batson v. Kentucky) Although theserulings establish that states are not obligated to use raciallymixed juries they do not prohibit states from doing so. In fact anumber of policy makers and legal scholars have proposed reformsthat use racial criteria to promote racial diversity on Americanjuries. Some have suggested that the names of majority race jurorsshould be removed from the jury list thus ensuring a largerproportion of racial minorities; others have suggested that acertain number of seats on each jury should be set aside for racialminorities. How would you justify these reforms to a statelegislature? How might an opponent of these reforms respond?Overall are these good ideas or bad ideas?