- The Washington Times - Thursday, July 11, 2024

The Senate Judiciary Committee defeated President Biden’s judicial nominee Sarah Netburn Thursday, with one Democrat joining the GOP in opposition, after Republicans raised objections to the judge’s recommendation to transfer a transgender inmate born a male to a women’s prison. 

The vote was 10-11 against the nominee, with Sen. Jon Ossoff, Georgia Democrat, voting not to advance the nomination. 

“The nomination is not reported to the floor,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin of Illinois.

Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, celebrated the defeated nomination in a post on X.

“The Senate Judiciary Committee just voted against Sarah Netburn’s nomination to be a district judge for the influential Southern District of New York. This is a MASSIVE victory for women EVERYWHERE. Why? Netburn insisted on housing a biological male serial rapist in a women’s prison, where he committed yet another sexual offense,” Mr. Cruz posted. “Today, sanity prevailed.”

During Judge Netburn’s May 22 confirmation hearing, GOP senators had asked her about her decision to transfer a biological male child sex abuser to a female prison after the inmate decided to identify as a woman.

Judge Netburn also came under scrutiny for refusing to answer whether chromosomes determine one’s biological sex, insisting that she never studied biology and is unqualified to answer.

She pleaded innocence of the question when asked about it in a written questionnaire by Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

“Is it possible to determine a person’s sex by only analyzing their chromosomes?” the South Carolina Republican asked the nominee.

“I have never studied biology and therefore I am unqualified to answer this question,” Judge Netburn said.

The back-and-forth came in the form of written follow-up questions following the nominee’s confirmation hearing last month.

• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.

Copyright © 2024 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.