All Americans should care about a functioning Supreme Court. Asian Americans have specific reasons to support a fair hearing of the nominee for the current opening, Judge Merrick Garland of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, President Barack Obama considered various potential appointees. He has named Judge Garland. Under the Constitution, the Senate has the responsibility of dispensing "advice and consent" for high-level roles within the federal government. That has been interpreted as meaning it holds hearings and then "confirms" an individual to allow them to take office. They are supposed to consider the White House selection, but they could turn down that individual -- in which case the procedure is for another person to be put forward until agreement is reached. It has not been uncommon to set aside partisan differences, respecting tradition and the need for work to be done, and past administrations on both sides of the aisle have designated Justices in an election year.

Asian Americans had hoped that the President would turn to an Asian American, whether a sitting judge, an experienced lawyer, or a noted professor. We should continue to aspire. There will be additional openings soon enough.

Even a generation ago, an observer would not have had much of a basis for denying that there were Asian Americans qualified for the "short list." Now, however, they could make such a statement only if they were willfully ignorant of the dozen or more first-class candidates who are available.

The President has single-handedly ensured that. He has filled the judiciary with a roster of Asian Americans. He has appointed 20 such jurists. To put that in perspective, that is four out of five of the 25 Asian Americans who wear the robes of justice within the federal system; it is more than all the Asian Americans put onto the bench by the President's predecessors combined. (There are Asian Americans in the queue. Judge Lucy Koh, who has been at the trial court in San Jose for several years, is awaiting confirmation to the next level, the appellate court between the district court and the Supreme Court.)

That should be no surprise. President Obama is related to the Asian American community. He has been called our first "Asian American" President. When he appeared at the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies Gala in Washington, D.C. to honor Heritage Month this year, he talked sincerely about feeling at home: his stepfather was Asian; his half-sister is Asian; and he grew up in Hawaii, with its tremendous diversity of Asian Americans.

The argument for Asian American judges, even a Justice, should be clear. It is based on the abundance of people who are highly capable, including those who are colleagues to Judge Garland. Asian Americans have the credentials and the experience. We have paid our dues. We continue to do that daily.

It isn't an assertion that just anybody should be installed solely thanks to identity. The misinterpretation of the demand -- which for Asian Americans is hardly ever expressed more strongly than as a suggestion, which we might do well to change in tone -- as an ethnic power grab is more than a mistake. It contains the offensive insinuation that some candidates are advanced based on merit, while others are offered for lesser reasons.

The first woman on the high court, the Honorable Sandra Day O'Connor, explained eloquently the importance of representation. She wrote, "in order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity."

Even before Justice O'Connor articulated it so cogently, that ideal has been invoked by successive groups who were formerly excluded: Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, and even whites who were not Anglo-Saxon Protestants who belonged to the "old stock." They were not given a seat at the table as a courtesy. They had to show they would contribute to the cause.

Our turn has almost come. Asian Americans appear in court as prosecutors and public defenders. We are increasingly among state court judges. We also participate as litigants in civil cases, victims in criminal cases, even sometimes defendants accused of wrongdoing -- whether properly or not. Recent high-profile encounters with the law, such as New York City rookie police officer Peter Liang; falsely accused Professor Xiaoxing Xi and civil servant Sherry Chen; have made it painfully apparent that Asian Americans cannot afford to ignore legal careers and the influence of law.

In a diverse democracy, politics must be based on principles. Among the most important is consensus. That means compromise.

There is a give and take, a back and forth appropriate form of deal-making that ensures we are able to pass laws, evaluate them, and implement them, despite our differences. Cooperation and coalitions are how minority communities achieve success. "Asian American" is intrinsically an amalgamation. The bridge-building is little known in Asia itself.

Asian Americans have an opportunity to show we are willing to take part in this process. By standing up and speaking out at this moment, even when the nominee is not "one of us," we reinforce our claim for the next occasion.