Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: Will the senate please come to order? We'll take a moment of silence in lieu of a devotional this morning. Thank you. Will you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham) — Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee]: to the republic for which it

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Would the president pro tem like to confirm that we did the pledge this week? This morning, we have s three twenty four. Okay. So I just have Okay. Okay. Senator Caledonia.

[Unidentified Senator(s) (Rutland/Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Appearing on the calendar for notice, I move that s three twenty four, an act relating to legislative operations and government accountability be committed to the committee on government operations.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: The senator from Rutland has moved that s three twenty four, an act related to legislative operations and government accountability be referred to the committee on government operations. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Ayes have it. Motion carries. Senator from Washington.

[Unidentified Senator(s) (Rutland/Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Appearing on the calendar for notice, I move s three twenty five, an act relating to studying the creation of model bylaws. He committed to the committee on natural resources and energy.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: Senator from Washington has moved that s two three twenty five, an act relating to studying the creation of model bylaws, is referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and Energy. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it and the motion carries. Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) — Majority Leader]: Thank you. We seem to go numerically here. Appearing on the calendar, for notice, I move that s three twenty seven enact relating to economic development be committed to the your senate committee on economic development housing and general affairs.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: The senator from Windsor has moved that s three twenty seven an act relating to economic development be referred to the committee on economic development, housing, and general affairs. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it, and the motion carries. Senator from Lamoille.

[Senator Richard Westman (Lamoille)]: I think the chair was a little out of order. Hearing on the calendar for notice, move s three twenty six an act relating to the miscellaneous amendments to laws relating to motor vehicles be committed to the committee on transportation.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: The senator from Lamoille has moved that s three twenty six an act relating to miscellaneous amendments to laws relating to motor vehicles be referred to the committee on transportation. Are you ready for the question? If so all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Ayes have it and the motion carries. Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) — Majority Leader]: Back into numerical order Appearing on the calendar for notice, I move that s three twenty eight, an act relating to housing and common interest communities be committed to the senate committee on economic development, housing, and general affairs.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: The senator from Windsor moves that s three twenty eight, an act relating to housing and common interest communities be referred to the committee on economic development, housing, and general affairs. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the motion carries. We now have a senate resolution. S r 21, senate resolution to US immigration and customs enforcement operations metro surge offered by senator Hashim and others. Listen to the first reading of the resolution.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: S r 21, senate resolution relating to US immigration and customs enforcement's operation metro surge.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: Now you've heard the reading of the resolution and it is referred to the committee on judiciary. JRS 39 joint resolution relating to weekend adjournment on 02/06/2026 introduced by the senator from Chittenden Central, senator Baruth. Listen to the first reading.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives that when the two houses adjourn on Friday, 02/06/2026, it be to meet again no later than Tuesday, 02/10/2026.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: Now you've heard the reading of the resolution, and the question is, shall the senate adopt the resolution on its part? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Ayes have it. Motion carries. Orders of the day. We have appointments. Let's see. Got it. Got it. We have appointments reported out of committee to take up confirmation. This appointment is of Christina Nolan of Burlington as associate justice of the Vermont Supreme Court from and including 01/05/2026 to and including 03/31/2029. The question is, shall the appointment of Christina e Nolan be confirmed by the senate? Recognize the senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham) — Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee]: Thank you, mister president. We're voting today on the confirmations of Christina Nolan and Michael Drescher to fill two vacancies in the Vermont Supreme Court. This these presentations will be broken up into a few different sections. As I've said in the past for challenging confirmations, this is all essentially a job interview. It's a long and at times uncomfortably awkward job interview and we are the hiring committee. I'm gonna share some important factors about this entire process as an introduction, and then for each nominee, I'll provide a general summary of their past work experience followed by a more, subjective presentation. So to begin, to the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a time in our state's history in which the Senate simultaneously goes to the confirmation process of two Supreme Court Justice nominees. These are lifetime appointments. The committee followed our standard procedure, for these confirmations. It was a process that was developed to ensure the committee has enough time to do its due diligence to allow the nominees, plenty of opportunity to testify and respond to questions and testimony and for the committee to form a conclusion. The few individuals who are granted the title of justice are individuals who will interpret state law and state constitutional questions. They will render opinions that will impact our judiciary in our state for many decades, if not centuries. State supreme courts deal with issues involving state law and the state constitution, although it is possible for federal laws in The US constitution to be interwoven in a case, before the state supreme court. It's also possible for a state supreme court decision to be appealed to the US supreme court. I wanna discuss, for what is hopefully the first and last time on the floor today, the topic of party affiliation of the nominees. It was established at the beginning of this process that the committee will approach this in a nonpartisan manner. Our Supreme Court is a nonpartisan, apolitical party, and the confirmation process should mirror those, same concepts. Our committee has received testimony, I've received many emails and have had conversations with a with a variety of folks in which assumptions or declarations of the individual nominees political affiliation are made. Generally speaking, I've had people tell me that miss Nolan is a conservative and therefore shouldn't be confirmed just as I've had people tell me that mister Drescher is a liberal or a conservative and should or shouldn't be confirmed. Ironically, in the same breath, many of these messages also say don't bring politics or ideology into this. And I wanna be clear that at no point have either nominee expressed to us their personal political views to do so would violate the Code of Judicial Conduct. And I just want to reemphasize, when I said that this is a nonpartisan, apolitical process, and, of course, I can't tell anybody how to weigh their decision making process, but I would respectfully ask that senators do not provide weight to their assumptions that they might have about a nominee's personal political affiliation. I also want to note that there were certain questions that the nominees were unable to answer. Although they are nominees, are still bound by the code of judicial conduct, and depending on the type or manner of certain questions that were asked, they may have felt prohibited from answering during the hearings. So if you heard them avoid a certain question and cite the code of judicial conduct similar to the political affiliation I would request respectfully that you not hold that against them. Before I begin with miss Nolan, there's just a short quote that I've kept in mind throughout this process from current US justice Kagan. During her confirmation hearing, she stated, the Supreme Court, of course, has the responsibility of ensuring that our government never oversteps its proper bounds or violates the rights of individuals. She was, of course, referring to the US Supreme Court. However, the same concept applies here. So I'll now move on to miss Nolan. Miss Nolan graduated from the University of Vermont and then the Boston College Law School. She's been a practicing attorney for a total of twenty one years, but fifteen of those years in Vermont. Immediately after law school, Miss Nolan clerked for federal judge in Massachusetts for a year and then moved on to a private law firm, also in Massachusetts. At this private firm, her primary practice areas were as a defense attorney and a civil litigator. After her time at the private firm, she moved on to a district attorney's office in Massachusetts from 2008 to 2010. After her time as a prosecutor in Massachusetts, she filled an assistant US attorney role in Burlington, Vermont. She worked for seven years as a in the criminal division until 2017. After the top position in the office became vacant, Ms. Nolan was interviewed by Governor Scott and then Senator Leahy, and among the list of candidates, Governor Scott and Senator Leahy sent Ms. Nolan's name up, to be recommended as the US Attorney for the District Of Vermont. Ms. Nolan served in this capacity from 2017 to 2021. Notably, Miss Nolan was the lead US attorney on the Purdue Pharma lawsuit, which resulted in an $8,000,000,000 settlement. And Miss Nolan, in a press conference, she stated that the business decided to put profits over people even when so many folks were suffering from opioid addiction. Miss Nolan described the last ten years of her work as being split fifty fifty between civil and criminal work. She's described participating in at least hundreds of evidentiary hearings and trials. It's personally tried at least a dozen cases to conclusion for a jury. And it's also had dozens of bench trials. She's handled numerous appeals as lead counsel and has represented clients and contested hearings in family court, including juvenile matters, probate matters and administrative or regulatory hearings. After stepping down, miss Nolan began working at a private law firm in Burlington, Vermont, where she handles criminal defense and civil litigation. So that concludes the general summary of miss Nolan's resume and experience it doesn't encompass every single detail and nuance of her past but it does provide just a general picture of. Of her work as an attorney now pivot to. To begin I'll first admit that when I first saw miss Nolan's name at the beginning of the judicial nominating process of it gave me pause and that was my initial reaction but only because I recognize her name from past public information. Now the J and B process is largely confidential, so I won't speak to that process. But I will say that despite my initial hesitations, was both pleasantly and positively surprised by her as a candidate and now as a nominee. As I do with all candidates and nominees, I put aside my initial reactions and approached the process with an open mind. Miss Nolan possesses a breadth of experience both as a private attorney doing defensive and plaintiff's work in state court, Well as a number of years as a federal government attorney. I believe this is a balanced amount of experience in different practice areas in court. Know there were concerns raised about the fact that miss Nolan serves a number of years as a prosecutor. However, being a prosecutor is not a disqualifying factor in any way. Prosecutors regularly have to deal with how their actions impact fundamental rights, and they must be keenly aware of how their discretion can impact an individual and their families. One piece of written testimony in particular struck me in this process. It was a letter from a person who was previously prosecuted by Miss Nolan. His name is Justin Gulick. He was initially charged with trafficking and firearm offenses while he struggled with a serious opioid addiction. And after spending some time in jail and becoming sober, mister Gulick became friends with miss Nolan. They stayed in regular contact, and he repeatedly expressed gratitude for how he was treated by miss Nolan and how her actions helped contribute to his sobriety. What I saw in the multiple hearings we've had with miss Nolan and in my one on one conversations with her, she's a person who was just very human and very self reflective and empathetic. She's also humble, and humble attorneys are hard to find. Fully confident that miss Nolan would serve as a justice with integrity. She claimed the Supreme Court must act as a bulwark against government overreach. I'm confident she'll maintain that perspective and I have no reason to suspect otherwise. The voting committee was five zero zero to positively recommend miss Nolan's confirmation to the Vermont Supreme Court. May ask for the senate support?

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: The question is, shall the appointment of Christina e Nolan as associate judge of the Vermont Street Supreme Court be confirmed by the senate? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor. Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Hi I just wanted to make remarks if that is okay that's we're doing that yes.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: We're doing that. Okay

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: As a member of the judicial retention committee over the past seven years, I've reviewed dozens of judicial applications and interviewed the vast majority of judges sitting in Vermont today. None of you will be surprised to hear that I relish the opportunity to ask judges tough questions, hold them accountable and hear them reflect on how they could do their jobs better. I'm particularly focused on how judges craft an argument and reach a decision based on the evidence before them and the laws we write. How they show up with empathy and respect for Vermonters who work or in or appear in their courtroom and how they recognize their own privilege and bias when presiding over a process that can determine the future people. I dug into the task of assessing Christina Nolan and Mike Drescher in the same manner I've been judging judges for the past seven years. There's never been a more important time to choose title justice and who bring faith in our judiciary to the people of Vermont through their actions, experiences, decisions, and values. Now more than ever, we need a strong court that will uphold the constitution rule and rule of law for everyone who finds themselves in Vermont. After a deep dive into her record reviewing the testimony and conducting two interviews with her, I believe Christina Nolan will be a strong addition to the Supreme Court. While it's likely that I won't agree with all of her decisions, I believe that she has a curious and sharp legal mind and will deliver well reasoned and well written legal decisions grounded in our laws and our constitution. She has a diverse legal background that provides her with a foundation that many judges lack in both civil and criminal law and both prosecutor and defender perspectives. The fact that she would come to the court without previous experience on the bench would allow a perspective on a court that is otherwise filled with senior judges. Nolan's managerial experience at the US Attorney's Office would also benefit a court that is tasked with overseeing the full judicial branch. At only 45 years old, Nolan is young for a Supreme Court justice. So she could have a generational impact on the legal system in Vermont. While some are concerned that she may swing the court to the right, I think rather that she'll keep the court grounded in admirable values. I found Nolan to have a strong moral compass and the ability to allow her beliefs to evolve. She's not afraid to admit she's wrong or doesn't know something. She knows when she's made a mistake and does the work to learn from it. She allows new evidence researches research and experiences to change her beliefs and perspectives over time. As a lesbian woman, Nolan has known the sting of discrimination and would bring this valuable perspective to the court. Her writing and work demonstrate a degree of empathy that is born out of personal experience and so desperately needed in our judicial system right now. When she talked about her clients and the people she's impacted as a prosecutor, she demonstrated a genuine care and concern for their welfare. One of her sample briefs highlighted a case about a man in Middlebury who she and his community have helped turn his life around. Finally, was impressed by her awe of and dedication to public service and her strong desire to serve the state she loves. These characteristics will not only serve her well on the court, but will serve Vermonters well too. I for firmly support Christina Nolan's nomination, and I hope you'll enjoy me in voting yes. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: Are you ready for the question?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham) — Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee]: Roll call. Roll call.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: Roll call has been called for, and when the vote is taken, it shall be by roll. Are you ready for the question? If so, the secretary shall call the roll. Senator Baruth? Yes.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore) — roll call response]: Senator Beck? Yes. Senator Benson? Yes. Senator Palmer?

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: Yes.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) — Majority Leader]: Yes.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: Senator Plunkett? Yes. Senator Ron Hinsdale?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Yes.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: Senator Bahoski? Yes. Senator Watson? No. Senator Weeks?

[Senator David Weeks — roll call response]: Yes. Senator Westman? Yes. Senator White? No.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White — roll call response]: Senator Williams? Yes. The ayes voting 23, the nays voting seven. The ayes have it, and you have confirmed Christina Nolan as associate justice for the Vermont Supreme Court. We now have another appointment.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: This appointment this is the appointment of Michael p Drescher of Hinsburg as associate justice for the Vermont Supreme Court for a term of and including 01/05/2026 to and including March 31 2029. The question is, shall the appointment of Michael p Drescher be confirmed by the senate? Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham) — Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee]: Thank you, mister president. This presentation will be longer than the last one. I can tell you that. As with the last confirmation, I'm going to present a summary of mister Dresher's past experiences. Mr. Drescher graduated from Dartmouth College in 1987 and went to work for an advertising company in Chicago for several years until 1992. Went to law school at Northwestern University School of Law and graduated in 1995 in the top 10% of his class. After graduating with the law clerk. In the second Circuit until 1996. Then went on to work as an associate at a private law firm in Burlington from 1996 to 2000 and then as a partner at the same firm until 2002. From 2002 to 2026 Mister Drescher was an attorney of the U. Attorney's Office in Burlington covering the district of Vermont. Between 2002 and 2000. In 2009 he was an assistant attorney in the civil division From 2009 to 2023, he was an assistant attorney in the criminal division. From 2023 to 2025, he was the first assistant US attorney, which is essentially the second in command

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: in the office.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham) — Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee]: From January 2025 to January 2026, Mr. Drescher was the acting US attorney for the office, a position that he automatically filled due to due to a vacancy. He was not appointed by the president. One of the notable cases that Mr. Drescher was involved in, was a case that I mentioned in for the previous nominee. This was the Purdue Pharma lawsuit, which resulted in an $8,000,000,000 settlement. Mr. Drescher and his colleague Owen Foster, who at the time was also an assistant US attorney were directly given credit for discovering the illegal kickback schemes through their diligent work. Mister Dresser described the last ten years of his work as being focused 95% on criminal matters and 5% on civil matters. Since being in the US Attorney's office, the dressers had one bench trial in at least six jury trials. He's participated in over a 100 contested evidentiary hearings, detention hearings, suppression hearings, supervised release violation hearings and sentencing hearings. The past ten years he has been the lead attorney on about 10 appeals to the second to the second circuit. During his time as a civil assistant during his time as a assistant US attorney, he's also worked on cases involving medical malpractice, environmental challenges to federal programs and personal injury claims, in the Civil Division. Much of Mr. Drescher's direct state court experience arises from his time in private practice prior to his employment at the US Attorney's Office. However, it is important to note that state law is often litigated in federal court, but the court will use the federal rules of civil procedure. So that is the general summary of Mr. Drescher's resume and experience and again it does not encompass every single detail and nuance of his past but does provide a general. Picture. So I'll start by saying that this has been the most difficult decision I've had to make here. It's been a sick a significant pushing and pulling between what I understand as an attorney, admittedly a rather new attorney, but also compared to my philosophy for how I serve as a senator. There was one night a few weeks ago when I was deliberating with a friend of mine who also happens to be a lawyer. We're going back and forth about this confirmation and debating the different philosophical dilemmas and after a while, a friend looked at me and he said, know, sometimes I I just hate being a lawyer. He was joking, more or less. For me, the issue goes beyond the nuances of past experiences, and mister Drescher certainly does have a lot of experience and intellect. Rather, this all goes to the heart of the issues we're facing today as we continue to see draconian policies implemented by the federal government, a number of which people find to be either unconstitutional or directly contradictory to the norms we've established over decades in America. One of the primary issues surrounding mister Drescher's confirmation is that of his involvement in representing the government as it relates to the high profile detentions of Remesa Ostert and Mosa Medowin. Now I wanna be clear that mister Drescher was not responsible for commencing the immigration proceedings, nor was he responsible for initially detaining either of these individuals last year. However, mister Drescher's role as the acting US attorney was to serve as the respondent to these two individuals' petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. This petition essentially challenges the government's grounds for detention and seeks release for the petitioner. Mister Dresser's role was defensive in nature. Prior to responding, mister Dresser was aware that these individuals have been detained as a form of retaliation for their First Amendment right. Through the hearings and through reading the pleadings, I've come to a basic understanding of what happened. I understand why mister Drescher raised certain points and I do not think that he acted in an unethical manner. However, at the end of the day, he did make arguments that were for the purpose of vindicating the unconstitutional detention of two individuals. And this is where a divergence in opinions arise. Some may argue he was doing a job and had no other options. They would argue that he had an ethical obligation to do his job, and as an apolitical government attorney, his representation of the US government was not necessarily an endorsement of the government's policies. On the other hand, those who oppose his confirmation have argued that he did have other options such as not opposing the petitioner's release from detention or taking no position or the extreme step of resigning altogether. They would argue that mister Drescher had an an ethical obligation to refuse to defend the federal government in these circumstances. Mister Drescher's response to these alternative options, and I'm summarizing, were that if he resigned, the responsibility would have fallen to someone else. Or if he stated the government had no position or did not oppose the release from detention, it could potentially be an ethical violation or he could be fired. Some witnesses in favor of mister Drescher raised the point that we shouldn't let these two instances shroud his past decades of excellent work as a government attorney, and he has done excellent work in the past. One such positive reference, a former US attorney and colleague of mister Drescher's, wrote that electoral changes mean policy changes and that the policies are crafted by Washington. Mister Drescher himself stated to our committee that the cases reflected an extraordinary change in executive policy, which was causing dramatic and unfortunate consequences across the country. And my response to that is if we're not drawing the line now about extraordinary changes which are causing dramatic and unfortunate consequences, when do we draw the line? When the resulting unfortunate circumstances are contrary to fundamental. At what point is the argument of I was just doing my job no longer acceptable? I do recognize that it's the status quo of government attorneys to do their jobs in an apolitical manner and throughout different administrations, but we do not live in the status quo right now. We're living through an administration that has thrown social and political norms into the trash, and each senator here is going to have to weigh as to whether you're willing to draw the line now or later or not at all. One argument that's been raised is that many concerned Vermonters simply don't understand federal immigration court procedure have a misperception about mister Dresser. But I do think that message distracts from the real point shared by concerned Vermonters. I don't expect any of my constituents to create detailed legal memoranda that dissect the past pleadings filed by mister Drescher nor do I expect them to read a 70 page third circuit court of appeals decision. I don't expect them to brief on whether the Immigration and Nationality Act strips a district court of its jurisdiction to hear habeas petition before or after a final order. But I do expect them to share how they feel. And they have been incorrect and they have been correct in their general understanding that mister Drescher was involved in defending the federal government's actions. Those actions were adverse to fundamental rights, and any involvement at this point, regardless of how it's justified or rationalized, is the end of the road for anybody who wants to work in government. That's the message that I've received by an overwhelming margin. So is that message wrong? Is it too harsh or premature? At what point are the people right regardless of how a politician may feel? Starting with my own district, I've had two retired judges reach out to me, judge Wesley and judge Hayes, each with strong opinions that oppose mister Drescher's confirmation. These are judges I've known for probably going back to 2012 and in their own ways have shaped the respect and the perspective that I have for our judiciary. I've had attorneys from my county who many years ago cross examined me and deposed me and much more recently now serve as mentors, And they have reached out to express their opposition. They too have helped shape my perspective and respect for the judiciary. And of course I've had dozens upon dozens of constituents from Windham County express their opposition As well as hundreds of vermachas from across the state. And again underlying it all is that same message I raised earlier regarding Mister Drescher's confirmation. In this case I have to ask myself is it appropriate for me to look at all of those constituents I just described and say to them that they just don't understand or that it's too complicated and that I'm going to vote differently than how they're asking me? I don't think it's it's appropriate. Trust and confidence in government is eroding. It's been an ongoing issue for decades, but has deteriorated exponentially over the last few years. The social contract between the government and the governed is increasingly fragile, and voting contrary to the many voices of Vermonters would only further contribute to that fragility. So I'll be voting no on this confirmation. I'm going to try explaining the committee vote without sounding like we're on an episode of The Twilight Zone. The committee, by a vote of three to zero, recommends no recommendation. That's not a positive recommendation nor is it a negative recommendation. I've been informed I can't present on the votes of individual senators or their intentions only my own and since the committee does not have a position I cannot represent a committee position. I can't say that I was one of the two no votes regarding the motion of sending this confirmation out with no recommendation and that is because I believe both as a chair and a senator, committee is expected to provide guidance. We're especially expected to provide guidance, good or bad, in more complicated or controversial issues, and this is certainly one of them. We're expected to have those answers and guidance one way or the other. Unfortunately, we do not have that guidance, and, to the senate, I apologize for that. Again, I will be voting no on this nomination. Thank you.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) — Majority Leader]: Thank you, mister president. I'm disheartened by that, last, action of your committee, and I would ask the chair, if I may interrogate the chair of senate

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: The chair. Who's interrogated?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) — Majority Leader]: I guess at this moment I'd ask were your expectations going into that, committee hearing were your expectations that you were going to be having an up or down vote?

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: Senator I would remind the senator from Windsor that we don't use you or your. You're asking questions through the president.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) — Majority Leader]: Thank you. Again, I will repeat. Were the senator's expectations that the committee vote that day would be an up or down vote?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham) — Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee]: My expectation was that that there would be a conversation about whether or not a no recommendation recommendation was a good idea. It was general the answer to your question is yes. Did expect that there would either be a yes or no vote, although I did expect that there would be a conversation about whether or not there should be no recommendation.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) — Majority Leader]: I would assume you would have had a conversation about all the options in front of you, one of them being, of course, a no recommendation. So I guess then I would follow-up with the senator and ask, how did you feel about not

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: having Senator?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) — Majority Leader]: Oh. How did

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: the senator want to continue to scold you, but please drop the u's and the yours.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) — Majority Leader]: Thank you. Thank you. Very hard. He's right next

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham) — Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee]: to me.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: I see that.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) — Majority Leader]: I I would repeat. I would ask the senator how he how the senator felt about, that by about not having that up or down vote.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham) — Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee]: I would describe it really the same way I described, in the speech. I think that committees are expected to provide an up or down vote, to the Senate.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) — Majority Leader]: And, I think with that answer, mister president, I would move that we recommit this nomination to the committee of jurisdiction, the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: The senator from Windsor has moved that the appointment of Michael Drescher be recommitted to the committee on judiciary. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: They which is Chittenden?

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: Go ahead, senator from Chittenden South.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you. Thank you, mister president. I mister president, what what that brief exchange demonstrated to me, is that this is a historic moment, for us to be taking this vote. People are people want clarity, if they can have it, on on how we come to this vote today. And I think we heard two very strong and compelling presentations from our chair of the judiciary committee. And Vermonters deserve to know that we have fully weighed the decision before us. What I heard in that interrogation, mister president, is that our very measured chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee took a lot of time and care in this process and then did not, was not afforded the opportunity to take that time and care with the most consequential decision of all. Whether or not to bring this vote to the floor without a recommendation. And so, mister president, I would ask for a brief recess, maybe a not so brief recess, so that we may discuss in dignified manner, things that are hard to discuss on the floor, which is the feelings of the chair of the judiciary committee who has made such a compelling presentation and how we might approach the gravity of this vote. So with that, Mr. President, I would ask that we take a recess. Mr. President, would ask for a twenty minute recess, is about, I do have my glasses on, about, is that 10:30?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) — Majority Leader]: I The senate

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: making it clear. My time rating skills with this particular clock are not great. The

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: senator from Chittenden Southeast has moved that the senate recess. I am going to say until 10:30.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman, President of the Senate]: Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. No. No. The nays appear to have it. The nays do have it. A division. A division has been requested. We will do a division. All in favor, please stand. You may be seated. All opposed, please stand. Yep. Please be seated. The eyes being 17 and the nays 13, we will stand in recess until 10:30.