Y'all are still talking past each other, because the term discrimination is assumed to be pejorative by those arguing against criteria of ethnicity/gender for a particular appointment. All appointment processes are discriminatory (look at Trump's cabinet, if you have a moment) - the issue in this case is whether or not that discrimination is warranted by what the judicial panel needs to best perform its duties.
The pro argument seems to be that having that panel look as diverse as possible increases public trust in the justice system. And broadens the life experience base of the Court. And contributes opinions that reflect a special awareness of the impact of the justice system on the ethnicity which, per capita, has the highest level of contact with the justice system.
The con argument seems to be that....well, I'm having difficulty discerning anything beyond "It's discrimination! Discrimination bad!"