I do not assume that white males cannot empathize with anyone other than white males.  It's difficult for a male to empathize with a victim of sex discrimination, however, if he's never talked to a woman who has experienced sex discrimination.  Diverse judges bring different experiences to the conference room, experiences that a group of white males will likely never have had.

Clarence Thomas was the closest Republicans could come to a conservative white male without nominating and confirming a conservative white male.  Of course black judges will not all agree on every legal issue, just as female judges won't agree about every issue.  Justice O'Conner didn't always agree with Justice Ginsberg.  The point is not that a female Justice represents all women or that a black Justice represents all blacks.  The point is that we are not a nation of white male conservatives.  We are a diverse nation, and our people are entitled to see that diversity reflected in our judiciary.

b) Thomas is an outlier that people bring up to deny diversity arguments in a classic case of logical fallacy - arguing to generalizations.

c) It is wrong to be blind to the centuries of evidence that demonstrate that people with privileged backgrounds do not often have the ability or the interest to understand the challenges faced by other groups of people. Women, blacks, gays have known this for a long time - it is why we need advocates like NOW, the NAACP, etc. Otherwise, we wouldn't need them because the white males would have actually fought for equality but they didn't, and often still don't.

I find your use of the incomplete quote to be dishonest. You need to give up on Olberman..

His words, when you hear him say that he has to apply the law, clearly show that while he understands and has empathy, his job is to apply the law.

The Left's current heroine didn't say that. And that is a vast difference.

well, my mother raised no fools, so nice try.