Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Windsor. Thank you, mister president. With the senate's permission, I would like to withdraw my motion. I will consider it withdrawn. The question is, shall the appointment of Michael p Drescher as associate justice of the Vermont Supreme Court be confirmed by the senate. Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Mister president, I just wanted to briefly, respond to the motion that was made and then withdrawn. I wanna thank folks for the conversation that we had about it. As I raised, it does create a concerning precedent of when we encounter challenging issues in the future and complex issues in the future. On the other hand, Mr. Drescher has been through the gauntlet on this and, despite my opposition, he he deserves to know, what's going to happen with this confirmation sooner rather than later. Will say that if this had been there was no intention of keeping it on the wall and letting it die in committee my full intention was to have it back on the floor, today so that we would have an answer, but I just wanted to express that to the senate. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Thank you. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Thank you, mister president. Let me begin by saying that a vote against a nominee is not a declaration that they are without ability or intelligence. It is a statement about whether their record, judgment, and values align with the responsibilities of serving on Vermont's highest court. A court that must reflect fairness, independence, and lived experiences of Vermonters. Mister Dresser's record as a prosecutor raises serious concerns for me, particularly his prosecution of Mohsen Madowic, a resident in my district. That case and the decisions made around it have troubled Mary from many Vermont Vermont. Not because we oppose accountability under the law, but because justice must always be tempered with restraint, proportionality, and respect for civil liberties. The Vermont Supreme Court must be a place where constitutional rights are protected vigorously, where the power of the state is viewed with caution, and where consequences of decisions are carefully understood. And reviewing mister Dresser's record, I am not persuaded that that approach demonstrates the level of judgment and balance I believe is essential for justice of our highest court. At this moment in our history, when courts across our country are being used to erode long standing protections, Vermonters deserve absolute confidence in their Supreme Court. That they will not weaken the rights enshrined in our laws and constitution. For these reasons and after careful consideration, I cannot support mister Dresser's nomination. My vote today is guided by my responsibility to my constituents, to the integrity of the judiciary, and to the values defined in Vermont, fairness, independence, and a deep respect for individual rights.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Thank you, mister president. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, Mr. President. As with the nomination of Nolan, I spent a considerable amount of time reviewing Dresser's file and testimony, money interviewing him reading relevant court proceedings and talking to his colleagues and supporters. Like many of you I have also heard from hundreds of Vermonters who are dismayed at the prospect of Mister Dresser becoming a Supreme Court justice. As we all know Mister Dresser has this been explained now twice Mister Dresser served as the federal government's attorney in the cases related to the detainment of most in the Dowie And Remesa Oster who were both arrested by ICE for protesting against and writing critically about the war in Gaza. These cases were internationally prominent and hugely significant for many people in Vermont and the broader United States. They were some of the first high profile cases of the federal administration aggressively arresting legal immigrants under questionable circumstances. The actions and arguments that the federal government made in these cases has have significantly escalated over the past ten months to the point where now federal the federal government is using deadly force against Americans who are seeking to protect their neighbors. Vermonters are scared for our democracy and many have lost trust in the institutions of government. Mister Drescher did not ask for these cases to be clear, and he has said that he took them to protect others in his office from the controversial spotlight. He says he kept his arguments narrow and did his best to move the cases along, And that is generally true. I've read all of the proceedings in these cases. He has said that he was just quote doing his job. While many have argued that he should have resigned, he has argued that doing so would have delayed the cases or left them in the hands of someone more zealous. Mister President, all of this may be true. He may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time. But the fact is that he still argued against the release of Medowi and Ozturk, who had been jailed for their First Amendment rights of speaking out against the government. Not only was he in the wrong place

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: Mhmm. He

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: was on the wrong side of two hugely important human rights cases in Vermont. And one month later, he applied to become a Vermont Supreme Court Justice. It is possible for me to understand why he stayed in his job and made the decisions to take these cases, But what I cannot understand is how he could think that these actions should earn him or at least not be used against him to earn a seat on the Vermont Supreme Court. He seems to have been so blinded by his ambition to be a judge that he has failed to even try to understand the impact of his decisions on so many Vermonters. The very people he seeks to serve on our state's highest court. And I want to remind everyone what I said about how we judge judges in the judicial retention hearings. One of the things we look at is how they show up with empathy and respect for the people who will be in their courtroom. And he has dismissed these concerns, entirely. When I met with Drescher, I asked him twice why he wanted to be a Supreme Court justice. But he was so busy explaining in great detail why he should not be faulted for doing his job that he could not tell me why he wanted this new one. He would he spent so much time seeming complaining about his detractors that he failed to see that many Vermonters don't want him on the court because he took the side of a government that is actively doing harm to to people in America. This lack of empathy and self awareness or ability to perceive his own biases are of great concern to me. Rather than understand that his actions in two hugely important cases have consequences, he has sought a seat on the Supreme Court with a sense of entitlement. Nobody, mister president, nobody is entitled to a supreme a a seat on the Supreme Court. And while many factors go into deciding who should be on our Supreme Court, public opinion should not be ignored, especially now when trust in our public institutions is so low and our democracy is so fragile. We need a a strong Supreme Court that Vermonters trust to uphold their rights and the rights of their neighbors too. I cannot support Mike Drescher for a seat on the Vermont Supreme Court, and I ask you to join me in voting no. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: On Friday, I had the privilege of reporting on a judge that I was excited to present, a nominee that gave me great hope for the future of the judiciary and great comfort in this moment when civil rights are under attack daily. And the reasons I highlighted for feeling so good about that nominee were his courage, his compassion, his insight, his reflectiveness, and his ability to understand his and the judiciary's impact on the people in front of them and on our larger society. Unfortunately, these are not things that I found in this nominee. I have no doubt that Mr. Drescher is a nice guy. However, being a nice guy does not bring me comfort, nor does it guarantee the rights of those that are before the court. What is needed more than ever right now is insight, humble compassion, and courage. When I asked Mr. Drescher about a press conference he attended with Pam Bondi in Florida, he once again told me that he had to go. He was doing his job. When I asked him if he had considered that his attendance would be used by the administration to take a sensational and important case and paint all immigrants in the light of this case, Mr. Dresser said this had never crossed his mind. That despite years of this federal administration vilifying immigrants by using sensational cases to paint broad generalizations and justify their inhumane actions, the fact had never crossed his mind. That he would be used in this way to is deeply concerning to me. The fact that he lacked the courage or willingness to potentially lose his job by not going to a press conference is even more concerning. We need a Supreme Court that is ready to act briefly and have the insight to know what their impact on those before them and our larger society will be. Mister Drescher is a nice guy. I do believe that. What I do not believe is that he has the courage, the insight, or the public trust to serve on the Vermont Supreme Court in a time when our rights are under attack daily. I will therefore be voting no on the confirmation of Michael Trescher, and I hope that you will join me. Me. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Mister President, I was born in the Upper Valley. I was raised in the Upper Valley. I'm an Upper Valley gal. I'm a Windsor County state senator. And the people that supported Moses Medaille when he was detained during a tricked citizenship interview, those people jumped into action with courage, determination, with a fear in their hearts, but a willingness to address that fear and still organize, to still make posters, to still make social media posts, to show up at protests time and time again during those days that Mosin was being detained. I saw people take off of work. I saw people plan day care so that they could have their children in a safe place when they went out and made sure that business owners had posters up in White River Junction. I saw people make phone calls asking where will he be moved next? What will happen next? Who is in charge of if he gets call time or proper food or proper medication? I saw the courage of my community come together in a moment of deep despair and trauma when one of our Upper Valley folks was taken, was taken from us. And in that moment, in that experience, in fact, I in the same room that we just were in as a democratic caucus discussing this, the day that I gave my speech, that Tuesday when we returned, I, in that room, shook with fear and with tears hidden behind the desk. Thank goodness Denny came in and made sure I was okay. I mean, the physical consequences of Mr. Drescher's defense of the federal government was not just felt by me personally or by the people who stayed detained for days unlawfully, but it was felt deeply by my community. It was felt so deeply that we had hundreds of people who showed up where the traffic was backed up for miles in Hartland, showing up at a church to say, why did you take him? What is happening? Why would you take someone who is a Buddhist, who is a nonviolent protester, someone who our community has known for over a decade? And when I walked into the court, not once but twice with mister Drescher as the prosecuting attorney, I was underwhelmed. I was underwhelmed. I was underwhelmed by someone who either clearly didn't agree with what he was saying and was almost morose, but still chose to make those arguments, still chose to make those arguments. And that does not meet the standard of courage that I think the Upper Valley demands of its Supreme Court justices. It doesn't meet the standard of organizing and resistance and responding to fear that I saw my basic community members step up and take hold of in a moment of extreme panic.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: I want Vermont to have

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: a Supreme Court justice that has the same amount of courage as an Upper Valley resident who stood for Moses Medoway. I think that that's fair. I think that that's a fair request. And I think my constituents would agree that we can do better than mister Drescher for the Vermont Supreme Court. I wanna end with one other thought.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: I

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: don't think I persuaded any of you to vote differently today with my speech, and that's okay. That's fine. I'm not as persuasive sometimes as I think I am, but I do want you to know that the Upper Valley will be watching the decision of this vote, and we will be watching if mister Drescher is put on the Supreme Court, And we will know what it means when folks tell us symbolically that they support us, but then are just doing their jobs when they hurt us. So we, as an Upper Valley community, I think we've heard are united against the nomination of mister Drescher, and I hope you join us in solidarity. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I would remind the folks that are visiting in the gallery, it is not appropriate to speak out. Only the senators are allowed to speak in this chamber. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Bennington.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Thank you, mister president. So I have I have prepared remarks, but I wanna start with talking about the process that I've seen over the past three weeks. And I've talked to and and the process here today, that is also important to everything that's gone into the decision I'm going to make. I've talked to many colleagues, and to a tee, everyone has said that the process that your judiciary committee took to get to this day has been impeccable. And in fact, one person put in words what I was feeling in my heart, that they were proud to be a Vermonter seeing how that process went. And I think mister president and everyone in this room really should be proud to be Vermonters, today, as much as this is a very difficult, difficult decision. Decision. So, mister president, I wanted to vote no. I wanted this to be the moment when Vermont stands up and says it stops here. I wanted to vote no for both of these nominees when this all started. This is what we are asking for. How do we fight back? What can we do? And here it is. Here was our time. I wanted to cast a vote that felt like resistance. Two hundred and fifty years, a nation of immigrants, then, now, and forever. I wanted a loud and clear message. In Vermont, you are safe. This is still the message of my vote. I know it won't sound as clear, and I hope to bring some clarity now. I think most everyone knows that I'm a lawyer, and I hope that this will be the last time I mention it. I'm a government lawyer, state government lawyer. Here in Vermont for just over nineteen years now, I've been before more judges than I can count. I've been before the Supreme Court a number of times that I probably could count. And like every lawyer, I've spent most Friday afternoons reading every Supreme Court decision as soon as it's published, and I really wish they would publish it at the same time on Fridays and get back to that tradition, but that's just a little aside. This is all just to say that I know what it takes. I know what I want in a justice, and I know the impact they have on the long lives of Vermonters. Over these weeks, giving to yes shocked me, especially that it was for both nominees. I scoured over everything that was before the committee, everything else I could get my hands on. Talked at length with Michael Drescher, I've come to know him. I've talked to colleagues and others as much as I could including at length with one of the retired judges. There's more than two. There's a slew of them that we've heard from now. This decision has consumed me and like others I've lost sleep and as others have said this is a point in history that will shape law and justice in Vermont for the rest of my lifetime. So I I must explain how I got to yes. There will not be time to address every reason, but I must address the main reason and the main issue that's filled my inbox. And and all of those all of those, I I am very grateful for because I agree these are not normal times. So this decision has required me to wrestle with principles we hold dear. Principles I've tried to live by in my own career and ask whether those still apply when the ground drops beneath our feet. Principles like how in Vermont, we strive to have a judiciary that stands outside the political fray, extending that even to the appointment process. But these are not normal times, and can that tradition apply even now? We've a nominating board that vets our judicial candidates, but can we rely on that in these times? So lawyers make arguments on behalf of clients with positions they don't always agree. Sometimes the lawyer at course. A professional responsibility requires us. But does even that bedrock principle apply in these times? I wrestled with these questions. I've scrutinized the nomination of Michael Drescher. His role last year, his decades long career before that to be clear, Michael Drescher's qualifications as a jurist are are impeccable. Dartmouth, Northwestern, he was a partner at one of Vermont's premier law firms for over twenty years. He worked in the US Attorney's Office, handling both civil and criminal cases in federal court, with their intersection with Vermont law. He led that office this past year. Such qualifications are just necessary for nomination. And as has been mentioned, our decision is rare, not just because it's two, but because we are assessing the work of lawyers, not judges, for their fitness to our highest court. And prior to now, we've always assessed attorneys on their legal expertise, their intelligence, their integrity, their professionalism, their candor with the court, their adherence to the bounds of the law. But can those now also show complicity? We've always needed government lawyers. They're apolitical that serve an institution, not an administration. And has that all now changed? I wanted to vote no, resounding. I shared the anger that I've heard from so many, especially over the last few days. I know so many are unsafe now, and I want them to have sanctuary. The more I wrestled with this nomination,

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia)]: the more

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: I came to understand something that that changed everything. I'm voting yes for the exact same reasons I wanted to vote no. That fear for our democracy, the need to resist, that same anger, that that that fear, that need now compels me to vote yes. Because I've come to believe that a no vote would not be resistance. A no vote would accomplish exactly what they want. We're living through a dangerous period in American history. Look around the country, look at what's happened. Federal prosecutors in other districts are being land based by judges for making bad faith arguments. US attorney's offices elsewhere become chaotic. Tools of political rest retribution rather than instruments of justice. These are strategies of attention that go hand in hand with the jackboots in the streets. This type of strategy is not new. I'm guessing most folks will recognize this line even if you haven't read Henry six part two. It's spoken not by Steven the Miller, but by Dick the Butcher. And if mister president, can quote from Jacob and Beck. The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. A lawyer joke, but it's not a joke. Dick the Butcher is a henchman to Jack Cade. Jack Cade who declares he will be king. Jack Cave who is desperate to be worshiped. Cave orders his followers to go out and kill lawyers as well as others. He does it because lawyers are the people who know the rule of law, who speak it, who guarantee that justice prevails. Later in the play, Jack Jack Kay declares that only his single voice will be the law, and that is the opposite of a just system. While Caledonia is not a perfect analogy to our present times, this aspect is frighteningly similar. Here's what I've learned about institutions or how institutions are corrupted. It happens not just by installing loyalists, but by purging everyone who isn't. By making impossible for professionals with integrity to serve, by poisoning every institution until only the corrupt remain. We reject qualified professional attorneys because they represented the federal government during this administration. We risk doing that work ourselves. We hollow out our institutions. We drive away the very people we need to keep justice alive when it is under strain. We tell every public servant, if you try to maintain your integrity while serving under during difficult times, even impossible times, You'll be punished anyway. I don't think that's in Vermont's interests. Now here's something else I've come to appreciate. The defense of democratic institutions, it's often boring. Democracy is preserved with protests in the streets, voting at the polls, standing up to the bullies and the tyrants. It is also preserved by a solid sober public servants who show up every day to do their jobs with integrity. The government lawyer who refuses to mislead the court even when under pressure by those who stay within the bounds of law even when the administration might prefer otherwise. By the experienced professional who follows proper procedure even when the unthinkable is demanded. This is the quiet and visible work that holds the line. It will never make headlines. It will never look or feel like resistance. But it's what keeps justice in the rule of law of why when it's under attack. And I looked very closely at the two cases that are very troubling. But they they are not cases. They are people. Their names are are Mesa Uster and most medallion. When talking about the law and getting down into the weeds of complicated cases, it can seem that the humanity and suffering of those involved is lost. It's important to never let that happen. It is in the weeds, however, that justice is often found, so I scrutinized Michael dressers pleadings. I read the transcripts that were available to me not all of them. I studied the court decisions. I know what due process looks like. I know what ethical lowering looks like. I also know that the wheels of justice are far too slow. I was looking for a reason to get back to no. What I found instead was that I was astonished that he wasn't fired. But let me be clear about something. Their arrests were anti American, plain and simple. It should never have happened here. But those cases were put before the court and had to be decided by a judge. That is our system of justice. A dialectic where two voices in our view breathe life into the law and then those voices are synthesized by a judge into harmony that is justice. Lawyers make that process flow, but it could have been someone else. Someone who might have been willing to bend the rules, someone who might have misled the court, Someone who might have object of obstructed the process in ways that led to even longer detention. The difference between advancing a position within the bounds of the law and advancing it lawlessly. There's a difference between candor with the court and deception. There's a difference between allowing the judicial process to function and sabotaging it. That difference matters just and while justice was not swift, not swift enough in these cases, process created something essential. A road map in Vermont for those who came after. Precedent requires two sides, Even intra district president. The attorneys in those cases did important work, but they could only do that work because there was a professional on the other side. That is how you build the legal infrastructure that allows courts and lawyers to do their jobs. The job of ensuring justice prevails. As imperfect as our system is, and don't I know it, justice comes not not by burning it all down, but by insisting even from within difficult circumstances that the rules still apply. And compare Vermont to what is happening elsewhere. US attorney's offices nationwide have experienced significant turmoil. Judges have issued sanctions. US attorneys disqualified. Assistant US assistant US attorneys have been publicly rebuked for dishonesty and bad faith. Scores of orders have been violated by the government. That has not happened here. Our US attorney's office under Michael Drescher did not descend into that chaos. The judicial process, our ultimate check on executive overreach is allowed to function, and that distinction matters. It matters enormously. Michael Drescher is an intelligent, thoughtful, public servant who kept federal institutions that were under his control functioning with integrity, protected our judicial system from within during the most challenging period, perhaps the most challenging period in all two hundred fifty years. So even now in these times, I cannot judge a lawyer for the client they represent when that lawyer stayed within the bounds of the law. Cannot fault someone for maintaining their integrity during difficult circumstances. I don't want to drive away the experienced steady public servants we need in our institutions. So my vote for Michael Drescher is a vote for the principle that we evaluate judicial nominees on their qualifications, their intelligence, their integrity, their fitness for the bench. This vote for the broad tradition of keeping this process apolitical. His vote for the proposition that we need people of character and competence in our courts, and based on everything I've reviewed, Michael Drescher is such a person. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden.

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

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: We've heard

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: a lot today and during this process that we don't want it to be political and that some people are taking a vote that is apolitical and some people are not. And that is the one thing, mister president, that I do not want to let anyone get away with here today. Because, president, this became political when students who exercise their free speech rights were arrested by the federal government. This, mister president, became political when we had two vacancies for the highest court in Vermont, and the governor chose two US attorneys who had served under and defended the actions of the Trump administration to fill two of those five vacancies at the same time. That is when this became political. Mister president, this became political not only when the writ of habeas corpus was denied for Rumasa Ozturk and for Mohsen Medowi, but I don't wanna talk about Rumasa Ozturk and Mohsen Medowi because they're free right now. They're free. They're with their families because those were high profile cases. And that's why everyone is talking about those cases. But what about all the writs of habeas corpus that were denied in the dark? Those writs of habeas corpus, mister president, are still being denied. And I can tell you because I know people who are in Texas detained. I think we many of us now know people who have been detained. And the writ of habeas corpus, the ability to say, please let me go home to the state I know, to the state that shares my values, is their last lifeline, quite literally. I am searching high and low for the documentation that I can get to help people even file a writ of habeas corpus right now. Because if they languish in prisons in Louisiana and Texas, their people have died in detention, but their basic civil rights and their basic access to justice is being denied. And why? Because they are being sent to to courts that are already political. Politics is already here, and it's disappearing Vermonters as we speak. So no one gets to say this is political or not political here today. It was political, mister president, when US attorney Drescher in September 2025 chose to stand with Pam Bondi and some of those same US attorneys who are gleefully disappearing people to their states, filling their quotas, filling their prisons for profit. That was political, mister president. That was political to stand in Florida, of all places, with our US Attorney General, who is now disappearing members of the press, and and the federal government is trying their best to continue disappearing people and evading the law. So it is not far, mister president, from denying writs of habeas corpus to people for exercising their free speech rights to getting to a place in Minnesota where people have been executed in the in the streets for exercising their first, second, fourth, and seventh amendment rights. These are along the same spectrum. This is politics. Mister president, it is political that we will be equally divided on this vote, and these politics will follow the Supreme Court of Vermont, whatever the decision is here today. But make no mistake, mister president. However you vote, this is political, and you have chosen a side. And to be complicit right now in this moment is political and is to have chosen that side. We did not choose this moment that we are in. We did not choose to have to battle against courts across the land that are denying people their basic rights. We do make that choice today, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Caledonia.

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia)]: Thank you, mister president. The Vermont constitution was amended in 1974 to reduce political influence and ensure a merit based process for the selection of members of our judiciary. And for sure we are in a politically charged environment right now. That merit based process manifests itself in a judicial nominating board. There are six legislators on that board including our chair and vice chair of judiciary, three bar association members, two appointees of the governor, and the executive director of the office of racial equity. I'm confident that all of them understand this issue more deeply than I do. And I'm also confident that the senator from Bennington understands this issue far more deeply than I do. The board recommends only well qualified individuals, and they require a three quarter vote, which is an incredibly high bar. Michael Drescher received more than three quarters vote from that board, and his name was forwarded to the governor amongst number of other names. And the governor, after seeing all those names, nominated Christina Nolan and Michael Drescher. I will be voting for Michael Drescher on the basis of his qualifications as determined by the judicial nominating board and vetted by the governor. And I do that to maintain Vermont's nonpartisan tradition of judicial nomination and confirmation. And when this vote is taken, I ask that it be taken by role. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Caledonia has requested that when the vote is taken, it be taken by role. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Bennington.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: Mister president, I wanna start by thanking the senator from Windham and the members of the judiciary committee for the fair, thoughtful process they employed through this, with with regard to these nominations. I'm impressed. I also wanna start by making clear that I despise everything the administration in Washington stands for. This administration is corrupt to the core, working to tear down democracy and corrupt the American ideal. I am outraged by the thugs of January 6, and I'm outraged by the thugs in Minneapolis. I'm outraged by the contempt for the rule of law. I'm outraged that Ramisa Post Turk and Moshe Mandali Madali were detained for, at least as they saw it, speaking truth to power. I'm outraged by the systemic cruelty deeply embedded in the psyche of this administration. It is thoroughly un American. So like my seatmate, my starting point when these nominations were announced was strongly negative. But like my seatmate and like every member of this body, I realize I take my responsibility here today very seriously. This rises to the level of a sacred obligation. I forced myself to remain analytical and honest with myself as I engage the process. I've denied myself the luxury of thinking about my political future and or making a feel good statement at the expense of somebody else. When constituents look to me for some kind of hope in the face of the Trump of Trump sluggery, I say to them, at least Vermont is sane and functional. And even if that's not exciting, I say, keeping Vermont's wheels turning with a sense of normalcy, fairness, justice, trying to do the right thing is a statement of resistance in and of itself. Keeping Vermont's governance sane and productive, not letting the president goad us into joining the insanity matters deeply to me. I'm an institutionalist. I'm not an armed waver. I tend to speak only when I have something to say. So there's a degree to which, no matter how angry I am, I'm viewing this process through the lens of my version of rationality and Vermont norms. So stepping back, starting point from my analysis is that elections have consequences and the governor has a right to appoint whomever he, in this case, wants. Our part of the process is limited to ensuring the nominees meet the requirements of competence and character. We do not get to substitute our judgment for that of the governor. Doing so sends us down a true slippery slope that once we start doing so will forever haunt this system. Second, and kind of related to the first, I call our attention to the testimony of Jeff Anastoy. He reminded us of the danger of the judicial nominating process becoming politicized. He noted that every time we read a US Supreme Court decision, the story says, which justices were appointed by a Democrat and which were appointed by a Republican. He noted that none of us have ever read a story about a Vermont court system case where the story says whether a judge or justices were appointed by a Democrat or Republican. I am both an attorney and a Democrat. I have a strong sense of right and wrong. Both in regard to my personal morality and within the confines of the law. But I've never rejected the decision of a Vermont court as being political. I've never just rejected it like a do us open court decisions. I have faith in the system here even when I disagree. Some have said that the appointment of Michael Drescher will politicize the court and cause people to lose confidence in its in its impartiality. I understand that argument. But I see the opposite, that failing to confirm Michael Drescher will, for reasons we've today, and I'll I'll talk about a little more, in fact, forever politicize the court. Is there a time when I would vote no in spite of that deep concern? Yes. But neither of these appointments for me rise to that level. Third, I believe that hanging Michael Drescher, a public servant with a long record of absolute integrity, out to dry because his job forced him to take an unpopular position would send a chilling message to young attorneys considering work in the US attorney's office. Don't go near it because you run a high risk of having your career derailed for your troubles. At a time when perhaps more than ever, we need people of the highest integrity to keep justice in the system. We'd actually be telling the people we want that we will in that job, that the job requires something other than integrity. Everything is wrong with that equation. Should Michael Drescher have resigned? My answer was no. I turned the arguments about courage backwards. Look at it differently. I believe that what he did displayed courage. And integrity. In his role, he he had the confidence of all involved in the system. He has never misled the court. He has never gained the system to join to to gain an advantage for the side he's advancing. He presented facts to a neutral arbiter. He did the right thing and in my view, through this process, he has he has displayed courage and integrity. Senator Plunkett and I met with Michael Drescher in Manchester a week ago. We probed. He told us one story that it may or may not have told others but it made an impression on me so I want to recount it. By the time Judge Sessions heard the detention case of Lamoille District, she'd been whisked to Louisiana in an attempt to make it more difficult for her to achieve judicial plea. When judge sessions ruled from the bench, she was to be released without conditions. The authorities in Louisiana balked saying that they would not release her without an ankle bracelet despite the fact that was contrary to the judge's order. The ACLU attorney who had represented her earlier that day called mister Drescher and told him what was going on. He said, stay on the line. Let's get judge sessions. They explained to the judge what was happening. Michael Drescher said, a written order would be helpful. Ten minutes later, he had it from judge sessions. He had it in hand and he sent it to Louisiana and she was then freed without condition. She had refused to be released with an echo voice that good for her. She had refused to do it. Michael Drescher knew what the judge had said and it led to her being freed without condition. This is the difference between an honest public servant and what we would have had if we'd had an administration hack in his place. That never would have happened. He probably never would never would have picked up the phone in the first place from the ACLU attorney and he never would have gone to the judge. He would have just said, well, tough luck. He didn't do that Because he he he should not have resigned. He is exactly what we need. I've heard from a number of people for whom I have deep respect Urging me to vote no. I get it. I am sympathetic to the core. Their feelings are heartfelt. I agree with them about opposition to everything that is happening. I want to make them happy. Some some of them are former judges, many of whom are long time, actually decades long friends whose values I share. But even more importantly to me, they're also my friends and neighbors, good citizens who brave the cold to stand at the bridge in Manchester in the 4 Corners Bennington protesting this administration's assault on democracy. These people are heroes to me. They are fighting for democracy. They're exercising their right to protest their government. They would make Jefferson and Madison proud. I want to give them what they want, but I believe that doing so would give them a Pyrrhic victory. I can't do it. You don't promote justice by visiting injustice on the exemplary public servant. You don't promote justice by hollowing out the integrity of the justice. Frankly, this is one place I guess where I I agree with the words that were said a few minutes ago. These nominations at this time were probably needlessly provocative. It would have been better to appoint one of them and then a respected member of the bar or perhaps a district or superior court judge. Whether I like it or not, I still have to judge these appointments under merits. And having done the work to fully understand the minutiae. What really happened? What's really at stake? What the choices really were? I've not only come to vote yes for Michael Drescher, but I do it because I believe in him, and I believe he will make it my justice, and I do it properly.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? If so, the question is

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: Roll call.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Roll call will be taken. The question is, shall the appointment of Michael p Drescher as associate justice of the Vermont Supreme Court be confirmed by the senate? Are you ready for the question? If so, the secretary will commence to call the roll.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Ruth? No. Senator Beck? Yes. Senator Benson? Yes. Senator Bongartz? Yes. Senator Brennan? Yes. Senator Brock? Yes. Senator Chittenden? No. Senator Clarkson? No. Senator Caledonia?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Cumming? No. Senator Cooley? No. Senator Hardy?

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: No.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Harrison? No. Senator Hashim? No. Senator Heffernan? Yay. Senator

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Ingalls? Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Lyons? No. Senator Major? No. Senator Mattos?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Yes. Senator Morley?

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Yes. Senator Norris? Yes. Senator Perschlik? No. Senator Plunkett? Yes.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator Ram Hinsdale?

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: No. Senator Buchholsky? No. Senator Watson? No. Senator Weeks? Yes. Senator Westman? Yes. Senator White.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: No with explanation.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Gulick. Yes.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Please listen to the results of your vote. The ayes voting 15, the daze voting 15. The votes of the senators being equally divided pursuant to the Vermont constitution chapter two, article 19, senate rule 72,

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Now

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: is 16, yes. 15, noes. The appointment of Michael Drescher has been confirmed. For explanation, senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: I vote no in solidarity with the courageous people of the Upper Valley.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: That completes the orders of the day. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: Thank you, mister president. Pending announcements, I would move that the senate adjourn until 1PM, Wednesday, 02/04/2026.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are there any announcements? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate government operations will meet at 01:15 today.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Essex.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: Thank you, mister president. Senator, agriculture will not meet today.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are there any further announcements? Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Senator this year, we have ten minutes after the fall to go.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Senate National Resources and Energy will be five minutes after the fall to go.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Windsor. Economic development will meet at five minutes after the gap.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator from Lamoille. Transportation will meet as soon as we can all collect.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden Southeast.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate health and welfare will meet five minutes after the fall of Cabot.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Bennington.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: Mister president, the senate education committee will meet at 01:15.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate finance will meet at 01:30.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, the senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate stand in the tournament until 1PM, Wednesday, 02/04/2026. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. We'll stand in adjournment until 1PM, Wednesday, 02/04/2026.