Sen. Hawley grills Biden judicial nominee on the issue of allowing biological boys in girls bathrooms

"Listen, I just want to be sure I understand your position. I'm thinking about these briefs that you signed in two different cases, one in North Carolina, one in Texas," said Hawley.

"Let me ask you about the North Carolina case first. You argue there that Title VII prohibits disadvantaging someone because of gender nonconformity, regardless of the birth assigned gender or current gender identity. The brief also suggested the privacy and safety concerns underlying North Carolina's proposed bathroom separation of boys and girls are unfounded, and that the state had not demonstrated any public safety risk," he continued.

Hawley then pointed out that in the Texas litigation "you said there was no data or tangible evidence in support of the claim that allowing people to use bathrooms corresponding with their gender identity will lead to crime, and restrooms."

The senator pointed out the recent cases at Loudoun county schools in which a ninth grade girl was sexually assaulted in a bathroom by a boy that identified as gender fluid, who was then transferred to another school and sexually assaulted another female.

Hawley asked "Do you stand by your comments and these briefs that there is there is no evidence of violence or crime in restrooms by allowing biological males to use biological females restrooms?"

"No, as I explained to Senator Grassley, in every case that I had as an advocate, it was my duty to represent the views of my clients," Thomas said, defending her past statements.

"And that's what I did in in those briefs, which were filed when I worked for the New York State Solicitor General's office. Now, I was not familiar before this morning with the Loudon County incident. But again, what I would say is this, that I understand well, being a judge, now, the difference between being an advocate advocating for your clients, and being a judge, who is duty bound, who takes an oath and one that I take very seriously, to apply the law to the facts and the record and to review each matter individually, as it comes before you," said Thomas.

"I'm just curious if you stand by these comments, do you agree still today that there is no data and or evidence in support of the claim that allowing people to use bathrooms corresponding with their gender identity will lead to increased violence or crime in restrooms and men? Do you think that that's accurate? You state you signed those statements? You you filed that brief? Do you do you think that that's right?" Hawley pressed.

Thomas responded by stressing again that she was acting as an advocate during those cases, not as a judge.

"Again, at the time that I filed the briefs, I was representing clients zealously as I was ethically bound to to do in a new case on new facts, I would have to analyze it based upon what was presented to me or sitting on appeal, based on the on the record?" Thomas said.

"You were actually Counsel of Record of the North Carolina case. You signed the brief in the Texas case. Now I understand you're representing clients. But of course I also understand you have a duty not to sign briefs that you think are unethical or that misrepresent facts," Hawley pointed out.

"So I assume you you think that the arguments made in these briefs were correct and accurate or you wouldn't have signed them, certainly wouldn't have been Counsel of Record," he continued.

Hawley questioned what Thomas would say to the parents of the ninth grade girl that was assaulted, considering her past statements.

"Would you maintain to them that their concerns are are unfounded, and that they they shouldn't be concerned about what happened?" Hawley asked.

"Sitting here as a judge, my duty is to review the cases that come before me, on the evidence that comes before me. I can't comment on a case that's pending on a case that might come into my… I can't comment on a case that's pending, that’s pending anywhere per the California Code of judicial ethics," replied Thomas.

"Just want to be clear. So you you stand by these comments. You know, you don't think that you stand by the what you filed on these multiple different cases, you don't think you were wrong about that you haven't changed your view, you wouldn't change anything that you said that you filed, you put your name to," Hawley pressed further.

Thomas responded once again stating that her role as an advocate for clients and her role as a judge would be separate.

"I didn't represent my my personal views about issues in the same way that my personal views don't come into what I do as as a judge. And I understand the difference between that advocacy role that I had then and the judicial role that that I hold now," said Thomas.