Video: Ted Cruz Rips Judge Nominee a New One, Dumber Than Ketanji Brown Jackson!

Written by Matthew Sinclair.

Federal magistrate judge Sarah Netburn has become a contentious figure, even among ordinary Democrats. Her controversial rulings have left many questioning her judgment. Naturally, President Biden has decided that Netburn deserves a promotion to the U.S. District Court. However, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is strongly opposing this nomination, as evident in Netburn’s confirmation hearing on Wednesday.

Judge Netburn’s decisions have often raised eyebrows, especially those involving sensitive cases. In 2022, she presided over the transfer request of William McClain. This case reveals much about Netburn’s fitness for a higher judicial role, answering any doubts with a resounding no. McClain had a notorious past, having pled guilty thirty years ago to molesting a nine-year-old boy and raping a seventeen-year-old girl. Despite breaking parole, he was released again in 2014, only to be convicted of distributing violent child pornography a year later.

This troubling background didn’t deter Judge Netburn. When McClain, who by then identified as July Justine Shelby, requested a transfer to a women’s prison, the Federal Bureau of Prisons recommended denying the request. Shelby, standing at 6’2″ with intact male genitalia, posed significant concerns. Yet, Netburn ruled in his favor, sending him to FMC Carswell, a federal women’s prison in Texas. This decision, made in December 2023, exemplifies the judge’s controversial judicial philosophy.

The Confirmation Hearing

During Wednesday’s confirmation hearing, Senator Cruz didn’t hold back. He grilled Judge Netburn on her decision-making process, particularly regarding the Shelby case. Cruz’s pointed questions highlighted the absurdity and potential dangers of Netburn’s rulings.

“This individual. Six-foot-two, biologically a man. A minute ago you said that when this man decided that he was a she, that you said this individual was quote, I wrote it down, ‘sober and entirely a female’… That phrase struck me as remarkable. Did this individual have male genitalia?” Cruz asked, cutting straight to the heart of the matter.

Netburn’s response was evasive. “Sorry, what I meant to say was hormonally a female,” she replied, leaving many to wonder what that even means in this context. Cruz followed up with another critical question, “The other women in that prison, do they have any rights?”

Judge Netburn’s answer lacked the assurance and empathy one might expect. “Senator Cruz, I consider the facts presented to me, and I reached a decision,” she stated, emphasizing that every prisoner has a right “to be safe in their space.” This response, however, failed to address the core issue of the safety and rights of female inmates at FMC Carswell.

Implications of Netburn’s Rulings

Netburn’s ruling on the Shelby case is a prime example of judicial decisions that seem detached from reality and the potential harm they can cause. Allowing a convicted male predator, who has merely claimed a female identity, to be housed with women, endangers those already vulnerable. This decision not only jeopardizes the safety of female inmates but also undermines the integrity of the judicial system.

Shelby’s case isn’t an isolated incident. Netburn’s record reveals a pattern of rulings that prioritize ideological agendas over practical safety concerns. This approach has significant implications for the judicial system, particularly in how it handles sensitive cases involving gender identity and criminal behavior.

In the exchange with Cruz, the broader issue of judicial accountability and responsibility was brought to light. Netburn’s apparent disregard for the potential dangers posed by her decisions is alarming. It reflects a judicial philosophy that seems more concerned with appearing progressive than with protecting public safety and maintaining legal integrity.

Our Take

The nomination of Sarah Netburn to the U.S. District Court is deeply troubling. Her track record of controversial decisions, particularly in cases involving sensitive and potentially dangerous circumstances, raises serious questions about her suitability for the position. From a politically conservative perspective, this nomination exemplifies a concerning trend of prioritizing ideological conformity over judicial competence and public safety.

Netburn’s ruling to transfer a convicted male sex offender to a women’s prison is not just an oversight; it’s a blatant disregard for the safety and rights of female inmates. This decision, among others, highlights a judiciary that is increasingly out of touch with the realities and risks faced by ordinary citizens.

The Biden administration’s support for such a nominee reflects poorly on its judgment and commitment to public safety. It underscores the need for greater scrutiny and accountability in judicial appointments. Allowing ideologically driven decisions to override common sense and safety considerations endangers the public and undermines trust in the judicial system.

Immediate action is necessary to prevent further erosion of judicial integrity. This includes rejecting nominees like Netburn who demonstrate a disregard for practical safety and legal standards. Ensuring that judicial appointments are based on competence and a commitment to justice, rather than ideological alignment, is crucial for maintaining the rule of law and protecting public safety.

Trending Stories:

Our Sponsors: