Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Good morning. It is January 13 here in Senate Judiciary Committee to hear the confirmation of Christina Zohl and Michael Krasher. I just want to lay off a few procedural rules here. For this biennium, when it comes to consummations, we have been getting an introduction from the nominee and then essentially leaving the name open for a week. And during that week long time, we may or may not receive information from witnesses who wanna testify, and that is that has been the practice this biennium. It's what will be the practice here as well. Today is for the purposes of hearing from the two nominees, if we have the time to get through both of them. This is a very significant process that is going to impact the judiciary for decades, and so we will not be rushing it. If we do not have the time to hear fully from both nominees and also provide the opportunity for the committee to ask questions that they wanna ask, we will reschedule. And I appreciate your flexibility in advance if we're not able to do an overview. And in terms of witness testimony, what has also been the practice is that individuals who have direct personal or professional experience who want to testify are able to make that request to come in and testify. People who have general opinions are welcome to provide written testimony, which goes into the committee record and is also provided to each senator to review. And the last piece that I wanna share is that this is for the committee. Do want to allow the nominees to finish fully their introduction before we start asking questions, unless you have a quick clarifying question. Anything that's more substantive or philosophical, I would ask that we hold until the end so that the nominees may finish their introductions. So in terms of who's going first, by any chance, have either of you decided who wants to go first?

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: We haven't decided. I thought I was going first if I was listed first.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: That's fair enough. I was hoping Yep. We can have

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: you first. I have a couple seconds.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: We can take you first.

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: The NFL, say in overtime to not take them all first. Good morning. Thank you, Senator Hill. I want to begin by acknowledging and thanking my partner, Jill Varsha, who has attended this hearing with me. Us and the family that we've built together will always and forever be the greatest blessing and source of pride in my life. I grew up on Woods Hollow Road in Westbrook, and while I promise not to give you a blow by blow at the chronology of defense from there, I mention it because I wanted to begin by expressing gratitude and providing some background for why I applied for the Associate Justice job. My father, Wendell, got the complete beat. My father, Wendell, was a carpenter before he went on to head the civilian maintenance crew at Camp Johnson, the Vermont National Guard. My mother, Stephanie, was a homemaker before she went on to teach high school music when we got a little older. Sorry, I'll get over this. My siblings, Adele, Barry, Samuel, I had a wonderful childhood growing up in the woods in Vermont. I believe my parents saw at a young age that I was born with the public service bug. They and my siblings who double as my best friends have nurtured that calling in me from childhood right up until the moment I Good morning. No, you're fine. Right up until the moment I applied for this job. As I grew up here in Vermont, attending West Good Elementary School, Mader Christie School, Rice High School, and finally, the University of Vermont, it crystallized for me that a career in law would provide a pathway to public service and a platform to make a positive difference for people and to advocate for others, including those most underserved, vulnerable, and in need. I give you this context only to underscore the depth of my sincerity when I tell you that I am without words to describe the honor I feel to be sitting before you under consideration perceived on the highest court in Vermont, And also to underscore just how well I will do for you and for all Vermonters, all of them, if I am so fortunate as to be confirmed. This is a dream for that girl from Westford to be sitting before you with another chance at public service. And it is a dream for that same young woman who attended Boston College Law School and during her 1L year wrote this letter, I'm holding in my hand, asking the Vermont Supreme Court to hire her as an intern for her next summer job. Now she was not hired back then. Today, I thank Governor Scott for the privilege of the nomination and for the opportunity to possibly once again give back and to serve the people of Vermont. The chance to serve on the Vermont Supreme Court is undoubtedly a public service opportunity like no other because it is the position from which I believe I can do the most to positively impact the lives of Vermonters of today and for generations to come. It is a chance to uphold the rule of law and protect our rights. My background in the law and in leadership have prepared me for the magnitude of this assignment. I know that you have my application packages, so I will not make more use of your time by cataloging their contents. Very briefly, very briefly, the vast majority of my law practice has been in Vermont state and federal courtrooms, including appellate litigation before the Supreme Court of Vermont and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. I have served as a law clerk, as a state prosecutor, as a federal prosecutor, as the United States Attorney for Vermont following the recommendation of Senator Patrick Leahy and Governor Phil Scott. And now, in my private practice, I regularly appear in the Vermont Superior Court's criminal, civil, family, and probate divisions, and I focus a great deal, I would say most of my practice, on federal, state, and state criminal defense, including federal court appointed representation of those without resources to hire counsel. I believe my experience leading organizations and practicing at the trial and appellate level on both sides of the aisle prepares me to faithfully and without favor or bias interpret and apply our laws and the federal and state constitutions. I want to end this introduction where I began by talking about service and what you can expect from me as a public servant. My parents raised me to treat people well. Very simply to treat others the way that you would like to be treated. And I have endeavored to live that way. Now I am not perfect. We all know that I make mistakes. But if you grant me the honor of this assignment, I promise that I will lead with a servant's heart and with an unwavering eye toward bettering the lives of Vermonters. This means that I will treat all of my colleagues, of course my fellow justices, but also every single person I work with inside the courtroom and outside of it with dignity, respect, and collegiality. That is not only the right thing to do and how I was raised, but we public servants owe it to the people of Vermont, and it is the Vermont way. Thank goodness. On that note, it's not lost on me that I'm sitting in front of public servants and you're doing the important work of the legislative branch, and I just want to thank you for your commitment and your service. Thank you for making time for me today, and I welcome the opportunity to answer your questions.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Committee, any initial questions?

[Michael Drescher (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: Sarah Lewis, I'll start. Good morning. Good morning, senator. So good morning. Yes.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: So, obviously, these these two nominations have robbed lot of public interest, as as you can see. I've been receiving numerous emails, so on and so forth, which I'm sure most members of the committee have. So one of that kind of comes to the forefront with me is I keep hearing about your lack of judicial experience in state courts and so on and so forth because of your being involved at the private level. How would you respond to that in reference to that question from them?

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: Yeah, I mean, I'm so grateful that I got to join private practice in 2021 because I think it made me a well rounded candidate. It gave me some time on the some time, which I had earlier in life when I was down in private practice in Boston, but obviously more current, five years of experience being in the state courts, representing, well, I've done really everything in the state courts. I've done RFAs, I've done CHINs, I've done, all kinds of civil litigation, from, commercial civil litigation to anti stalking litigation and so forth. And then also, I'm very proud to have done I'm a proud criminal defense attorney. That's what I do for a living, and I think I'm doing pretty well. I'm enjoying identifying instances of government overreach and protecting the rights of my clients. I care about my clients. And yes, I'm representing them in state and federal court, but I've been in all the different state court rooms. I suppose I haven't practiced in the environmental division. If I'm confirmed, look very forward to learning about how that court works. But otherwise, I've spent a good deal of time in all of the counties. Not all of them, I'm sorry, but in many of them. So Addison, Orange, Windham, Chittenden, being in practicing in the Vermont Superior Court. Of course, I haven't been a state judge. I've got some experience with judge light duties in this assignment that Judge Crawford gave me to be a special master, discovery master, and make some other discovery decisions in that large complex federal antitrust case. But I haven't been a judge, what I have been is a practitioner who's been on both sides of the aisle in state and federal court. And I think it's really important to have that broad perspective coming into a job like this.

[Michael Drescher (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: I hope that answers your question.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Well, hopefully mine and many other people.

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: I'd be right.

[Michael Drescher (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: Thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Senator Baruth, you guys have question.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Thank you, and thank you for being here. My colleague, Senator Norris, mentioned the email that we get, and this is when any judge comes before us, but particularly a supreme court judge, and they often involve incidents from the past. Yeah. So I thought it would give you an opportunity to address one of them, which is involving a firearms and a courthouse security system. And my memory is that a couple of years ago, we had another candidate where a similar allegation was being made. Could you just address that?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Oh, of

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: I made a very regrettable mistake. I really and I'm not a person, and I really rang a bell on this one. I guess I I have submitted an additional statement that outlined what happened that day, but I guess I'd like to take the opportunity to tell you a little bit about how the gun got in my bag, because that's a curious thing, right, to to have the gun in your bag one day and not remember. I think it might be important to tell you that I bought that firearm when I was an assistant US attorney. And the reason I bought it is not because I think it's people I'm not particularly a gun person, but I was scared because someone that I prosecuted, sent some very scary threatening letters to me saying that they were going to torture and kill my family, naming my family members and also threatening to burn down my home and other things like that, my family's homes. And I bought the firearm with my father and all I had it for was home security and we kept it in the home because of,

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: you know, just in case

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: something happened. And then one night, so, since we've had it, there's been a couple of there was one instance where there was someone and we live in Burlington and occasionally there's a security incident, and we had someone banging on our door one night, years ago. Nothing ever came of that. But the night before this incident happened, there was another instance of I was upstairs, my partner Jill was downstairs. Hopefully this isn't too much information, but I wanted to give a little context. And I heard some banging, or she started calling for me and said, There's someone banging on the door. It was nighttime. I removed the firearm. I did not use it. It was with me. I came downstairs. By the time I came downstairs, that individual was gone. Gone and I never had to interact with them. Gun was set down somewhere downstairs and I had a hearing in Windham County the next morning and it was one of those carried times. It was a Monday morning. I hadn't been down to Windham County for hearings before. There was some question of whether we were going to have a contested hearing or there was going to be a change of plea. I'd never met the client person before. So after the incident, when we went upstairs to bed, the gun got placed in my bag. And I would just like to say, this is no excuse, but the bag that I was carrying was like a Mary Poppins bag. You know these bags that are just, you you could pull things out of them forever. It was one of those. So at nighttime, the night before, it got placed in my bag. We went upstairs, and then I carried it with me. I don't carry It's unfortunate because I'm not judging one way or the other, whether you carry a gun with you everywhere or you don't. I think that's probably personal decision, but I don't usually. But that's how it got in the bag and thought I'd give you that podcast.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you for the a follow-up to that. Thank you for all the details for going into this. But and follow-up to that, there were questions as to why as

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: to what

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: happened after after the firearm was found through the security system and what what happened after that? Sure.

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: Yeah. I mean, I walked I'll never forget. I walked in. I just thought it was a normal hearing and I put it in the thing and the woman said, the very kind couple of security officers, she said, I think I see a gun in there. At first I was like, oh, can't be. Then she's rifling through and then that's when the heat starts to rise in your neck and I'm like, Oh my God, I think that gun was so big in my bag last night. Sorry, I addressed more the lead up because it's not in my written submission, but in my written submission I explained the matter. So it was found. There was not, I was like the only person in the courthouse that I remember except for the prosecutor on my case. It was a quiet courthouse. They said, We're going to tell the judge it happened. We understand it's an accident. They did. And then it was referred to, as I understand, referred to state's attorney. The state's attorney, at some point advised of this program, this pretrial diversion program, which she wanted me to take. I thought it was a I'm sorry, it's a pre charge diversion program. And I said, I'll take it. I think it's a really good idea. And because I don't I can never tell you that I'm not going make another mistake. I really can't. But I can tell you, I tried my darnedest not to make the same mistake twice. And I took the course. I have

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: to tell you, I've got a lot

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: of grace, but I've a lot of grace to give to these people on that panel who do the restorative justice work. I know we signed confidentiality papers, so I think it's okay for me to talk about, even because the cat's out of the bag. My cat's gonna like that cat. But I wanted to just take accountability, take all the steps that I needed to take. I'm a rule follower. Did not mean to do this. And I wanted to take all of the steps that I could take to try and ensure that this particular mistake, which is a very serious one, would never happen again. And I took a gun safety course that I wasn't required to do and did the program. But I learned a lot in

[Michael Drescher (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: the program. Thank you. I

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: do have a broader question, then we'll have Senator Vyhovsky. So this would be a lifetime appointment. The decision is presumably be on the bench for many years beyond the current federal administration. And I know that at least a lot of my constituents and folks in that curriculum around the state are generally very concerned about the interactions between state and federal government, and the preservation of individuals' rights and how marginalized communities are going to be treated, not just now, but also in the future. And I want to give you an opportunity to address those concerns that I know a lot of promoters have, if you have any additional thoughts that you could share on that topic. Yeah.

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: I'll share what I think I can at the point of code, which is I understand those concerns, and I think a judge. There are going be some hard decisions to make. And I think in the hardest cases, I can speak to how I would approach the job. And in the hardest cases, the text is not clear, where there's impeding views of legislative intent, where there's impeding views about precedent, we've been cast on this. Then I think you do. The life of the law is experienced. And I think you do have to look to what's happening on the ground in the hardest of cases, and including if a decision would have a questionable effect on power dynamics, and if vulnerable populations, whether they be vulnerable due to race, immigration status, gender, you name it, religion, sexual orientation, as I felt this thing of discrimination at various points in my entire life. If those are going to be the results on the ground, that's something a judge needs to consider, if power dynamics are going to be exacerbated in a way that shrinks the conscience. I think that you have to go back and look at those other sources like precedent, legislative intent and test when you see a result like that on the ground. I think that's the most I can say without committing to a political position, which would be inappropriate in this context. Thank you.

[Michael Drescher (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: Sorry about this.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I have couple, but if you have some more, I'm okay to wait.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, actually, a very quick clarifying question. I had also received some concerns stating that, you know, as a, quote, lifelong prosecutor, it's it would be problematic if you were a justice. In my own opinion, I don't think that the mere fact that you were a prosecutor is a disqualifying factor. And in looking in your application, it also appears to me that prior to becoming a prosecutor and currently, you were a defense attorney. Yeah, I'm

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: a proud defense attorney. I loved being a defense attorney. A lot of people didn't think it would No, because I was a prosecutor in the US Attorney for a number of years. I think a lot of people thought I wouldn't like it, but I love it. I love it. I love fighting for people who are at the worst moment in their lives. I love trying to help the authorities, prosecutors, when I do, which I used to be, understand that there's more to a person than their crime. And I believe in redemption, you know, and forgiveness and mercy and all of those things. I did as a prosecutor too. So to be advocating for people at the worst moment in their lives who are not only their crime has been more rewarding for me than I can possibly tell you. And let me tell you what I've also seen. Plenty of examples of government overreach and violation of rights. And I so I'm perfectly aware that there are instances of good government and not so good government. And I will bring that perspective with me to the bench. If I'm not confirmed, I hope I am, I very much hope I am, I will go back and I will proudly fight for those clients and I will look forward to the opportunity to do that. Now, I'm not running from my experience as a Prosper. I'm proud of it. As I said, I had the recommendation. I've been, you know, I'm so proud of this and still sometimes I wonder if this could have happened to me. But I got Senator Leahy's recommendation. I got Governor Scott's recommendation and then I got the unanimous consent of the United States Senate. I tried to do the job every day in a nonpartisan way because questions of justice shouldn't be about politics. And I took an oath in that job, and my loyalty and my responsibility and who I answer to every day was that oath. And I'll answer to the oath again. I'm so fortunate as to be confirmed, and only the oath. And I just if I may, just in terms of being proud of being a prosecutor, we convicted Purdue Pharma. That's never happened in this country before. We brought an opioid giant It's largely responsible for the opioid crisis in this country. We've put them out of business. There's someone sitting in this room who helped me do that. Please don't let me take all the credit for it. It was a team effort. Many other things. Fraudsters who did so much damage up in the kingdom, who convicted them. Brian Folks, one of the most vicious human traffickers, traffickers of children, young women, what he did to those women. One of the most prominent human trafficking cases in the country. We worked with those victims and we convicted him, I

[Michael Drescher (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: think he got twenty five years

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: in jail. And I did some other things. I was the lead on federal fair housing policy, helped to establish Jenna's Promise. I mean, a lot of lot of prevention and outreach work in schools. So yes, I was a prosecutor, but I was also trying to help all of our stakeholders approach our criminal justice problems in a holistic way and support our treatment and prevention.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: Okay. Same

[Michael Drescher (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: on Sky.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Absolutely. This is somewhat related to some of senator Hashim's questions, and I also have an inbox, you know, full of people's thoughts on on appointments. Yep. In a system that was actually not built to be fair, it was built particularly for people who had money, were white, were men, owned land, maybe maybe other human beings, what do you view the role of the Supreme Court in that world where the justice system and the law is in fact unjust?

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: Yeah. Let me just thanks for that question. That's a really important one. Makes me wanna bring up how proud I would be to serve on the Vermont Supreme Court particular because this particular court has been out in front of recognizing that the law itself was unjust. And in the early 1800s, this court was holding, you know, you cannot own people. Whereas some fifty five years later, the United States Supreme Court was, fuck up my dates right here. But you know what I mean. A long time before the US Supreme Court, the Vermont Supreme Court knew the difference between right and wrong. I'm gonna know the difference between right and wrong. I promise you that. And I also tell you that the the Baker case is another bookend in terms of the Vermont Supreme Court being way ahead of civilization. And it changed my life, right? People looked at me and my relationship in a different way. And so that's part of the honor of what it would be to serve on this quarter. It's a chance to that a chance to make those decisions when the rest of the world seems to be like minded.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Can you speak a little bit to sort of the growth and change over your career, maybe an instance where your thinking has evolved or your views on something has changed?

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: Think when I was 30 well, I started being a prosecutor you know, in my twenties. And I think it is inarguably true that as a young person, I came in sort of thinking I had to be really aggressive in every case, know, quickly I learned that the world's not bad to go. It's not so black and white. Right? And so the work changed me. It's working with cooperators, you know? Well, one thing that a prosecutor does that I don't think or maybe folks wouldn't know intuitively is we work with a lot of people as witnesses who want defendants because they plead guilty and they decide to cooperate and they want to be witnesses against other people. So in that sense, as a prosecutor, you meet these people and you work with them and you prepare them to testify and you just start to see this. So many of these people are just good people who lost their way. And then so as a defense attorney, I get the help of them in a more full throated way. And if you cash, Jill, I do love these people. I have such a heart for the people I represent. But I think as a prosecutor, I was young. I was young when I started and I grew up in the job and I started to realize that it's just you have to take each case on its facts. Each person deserves to be treated as an individual and not in a cookie cutter type approach. I think what I proved to do is what a prosecutor should do is just not come in and say, I have to be this way, but I have to do justice in each case. Meeting some of the people I was prosecuting was so enlightened in that way. And so I made countless decisions to reduce charges or advocate for lower than what I could have advocated for at sentencing because it simply wouldn't be unfair.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Okay. What do you view the Vermont Supreme Court's role kind of in this moment in time? We're we're looking at a lot of, you know, questions of separation of powers and due process and government overreach. Mhmm. How how do you see it in terms of, with our Vermont Supreme Court and what's happening sort of federally and across the nation?

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: I see my my job is to be bolder against government overreach and those who would not have any regard for the rule of law. The rule of law will be my guiding light. That's what knits us together, right? We're all so different. We're diverse. That's what's beautiful. But we all need to buy into and respect the rule of law. So that would be, I'll be one of the five bulwarks for protecting our rights in the face of every single and and upholding the rule of law in the face of anybody.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I can't fault. That is helpful. Thank you. I might have to start

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: by just to come back to

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: that short thing at this moment.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Senators, any other questions? Just

[Michael Drescher (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: a

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: just a real quick one, I think. But, you know, your resume is, you know, federal prosecutor, now a defense attorney, and kinda how that that interplay would be an asset to being on

[Michael Drescher (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: the Supreme Court. I'm just kinda curious if you have a little bit more on that and how that

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: all those interplays come together

[Michael Drescher (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: Mhmm. Being on the bench. I'd be curious.

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: I think it's just I think it's really important to be able to see things from both sides and also to be able to change your position based on facts, and maybe somebody else can persuade you. And so I think being on both sides, I really can see both sides of the argument. I'm not saying that I would change my position just because I'm particularly a pushover, I don't think, but I do listen. So I think that having worked on both sides is going to give me the perspective to see these issues in a very well rounded way. You know, I think also that coming from directly out of practice, you know, I've spent a lot of time in jail cells and with people crying and all different issues, drug addiction, mental health. You know, some people I represent were they grew up in circumstances that I

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: don't know how they're standing.

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: You know, they had the worst childhoods. Maybe they grew up in violence and all of these things. I think but then again, I have seen the worst kind of crimes too. And I prosecute, like Brian Folks, I mean, what he did was unimaginable, and that needs to be prosecuted and investigated. And that's a hard case together because of the victims and how challenging that is. But what I guess I'm I guess what I'm saying is those real world experiences and those raw experiences, I hope that that could help bring some of the real world. I'm not saying it's not I think it's great to have a diversity of backgrounds on the bench, but I want to carry those stories in my heart with me if I'm so fortunate as to leave a bench.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: You have a Senator Hovsky? Yeah. So what do

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: you think is gonna be the most difficult part for being a Supreme Court justice for you and how will you navigate whatever that is?

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: Think one of the things that I'm gonna have to find a way to adjust on is just sort of how you this is something I'm looking forward to learning, but how you have friends and, you know, Yeah, I have friends. I like to have some friends. Some of my friends are lawyers, so I got to think about how to be a complete human being with friends and also always put those ethical canvas first.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Great. Thank you. Any other questions? From Senator Norris? Yeah.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: This is was just curious, being on both sides of the aisle, prosecutor, defense attorney or whatever else, how you look at that, sitting up on the big bench there and take a breath. Okay. So we all relax here. What do you What excites you about that? What is your role going be? It's very similar to what Senator Bahosky just asked, but I'm just curious as to you. Tell us why you want to do this.

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: Because of the rule of law and the need to protect rights. I don't know how much more simply I mean, this is such an important moment to have good qualified people who want to just faithfully interpret the law and apply it. And so I feel that that is the ultimate, in many ways, a lawyer, especially a lawyer from Westward. This is the ultimate opportunity for public service in that form of That's what I'm qualified to do for people.

[Michael Drescher (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: So, Brooke, I'll just say one last thing. I I had thought a lot about this already given the flood of email that we've had, and I think what's happening to to put a put a name on it is that president Trump, in many people's opinion, including my own, has politicized the the bench, politicized the process by which judges are put forward and in ways that I feel as though many Americans feel they need to respond to by by being equally aggressive or politicizing from the reverse perspective. So my, you know, my advice to the senate is going to be that we, regardless of that push to politicize from the federal government, that we maintain our traditions and that we maintain our even handedness when it comes to the judiciary and and the nomination process and that everybody listened to the testimony from the nominees and whatever comes in from the public and that we make a judgment outside of politics, in fact, hitting that note yourself, which I appreciate. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Any

[Michael Drescher (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: questions?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Great. Thank you very much.

[Michael Drescher (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: Thank you

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: for your time. Thank you. So I'll just note we we spent thirty five minutes on, as

[Christina Nolan (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: you know, and there are

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: about twenty minutes left until we have heard. I do want to make sure that you have just as much time as you need, mister Gresher. So we'll we'll provide you the call. If if we run out of time and there are more questions, we will find time a little bit later this week or the next to have you back. It concludes this first round of introductions and reflections. Does that

[Michael Drescher (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: make sense? It does. I thank you, and I appreciate, and the senators have acknowledged there's a lot of interest in this process right now. And I welcome the opportunity to try to answer or explain any questions that any members of committee may have, whether they become a constituent or otherwise. Before I give my brief opening remarks, I wanna introduce my wife, Christina, a presidio of thirty five years. Proud that she's here today, and I thank all for her support and her partnership for the overwhelming majority of our lives. I also wanna thank the committee for rescheduling this committee this meeting on such short notice. I also want to thank again the governor for nominating me for this incredibly important position and the traditional nominating board as well for recognizing that I am gladly qualified for this position. I am grateful for everybody's input in the process. I grew up in California, but in 1983, met Chrissy during our first year at Dartmouth. By the end of that year, we started dating, and when we graduated, we moved together to Chicago. We got married in 1990, And today, we have about two daughters who we are incredibly proud of. One of whom is about to finish law school and the other is about to start in. Chrissy grew up in Upstate New York near Glenns Falls, and thanks to her and thanks to my experience just across the Connecticut River, we developed a dream fondness for the state of Vermont. When I graduated from law school, my first job out of school was to be a law clerk for Judge Greg Parker, Burlington, Before heading to Vermont to start that job, I decided I would take the Vermont bar. I had an interest in joining the legal community here. Christie and I moved to Swan for that summer where I studied the bar and was placed at Bassett. During my year clerking for Judge Parker, Christie and I decided we wanted to paint Vermont home. At the end of that year, I began working for a Burlington law firm where I practiced extensively in various state courts and before the Public Service Board. And then after more than five years there, I joined the United States Attorney's Office in 2002, having been hired by Peter Hall to be a career United States Attorney. I want to think the prospect of being an associate justice on the the month supreme court is the best use of my thirty plus years to appoint an attorney. My career has been divided almost exactly equally between civil litigation and criminal litigation. I was initially a civil, AUSA before becoming a prosecutor in the federal office. And and I, for the last few years, have been supervising both the criminal and civil divisions within that office. I want to inform the committee that, after almost twenty four years there, on Friday, last Friday, I resigned from the United States Attorney's Office. I did that, shortly I made the decision to do that shortly after today's hearing was scheduled. I did that because in order to be able to speak freely at this hearing, I think I needed to be unencumbered by being employed by the Department of Justice. I did that to honor this process, and while I will miss my colleagues in that office yearly, and while it is unsettling to be out of a job at this time, I want to be as candid and as forthcoming as I possibly can be in addressing any questions or concerns about my time at the United States Attorney's Office. I also want to emphasize that I have never been politically appointed to end the position. I was hired as a career at USA. I became the acting United States Attorney on January 20, simply because at the time, I had been serving as the number two person in the office. I became the acting United States Attorney automatically by statute. I was not I was not politically appointed, and I never sought to be politically appointed as The United States Attorney General. This past year, has placed unusual stress on the legal system, and I suspect we'll get some questions about that in a moment. But at no time did I or anyone that I worked with in Vermont ever wavered on the oath we took to defend and protect the constitution of The United States. That oath was not to any to defend or protect any individual, the administration. It was to defend and protect the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. And I am proud to say I invited that oath throughout my time at the office. And I am happy to answer any questions that the committee may have At this time, we're at a subsequent meeting.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Thank you. Senator Baruth, so your hand. Yeah. To your point, and I appreciate what you say about it. I appreciate the decision to resign from the Department of Justice. I think one of the hallmarks of this administration, the second Trump administration, to use a phrase from Silicon Valley is to move fast and break things, and then force others and the system in general to respond to that rapid movement. And this is throughout, you know, what they're doing, I think, in the immigration space, but also in terms of something as simple as evading historical guidelines and norms in terms of reshaping the White House and historical. But obviously, these things have broad implications for safer lives and their lives as Americans. So So I'm I'm wondering as as a Vermont Supreme Court justice, I I have been myself critical at the Supreme Court for not pausing or stopping those behaviors when they have a chance. Instead, it seems to me that there's a tendency to allow the executive to plow forward and not use the judiciary as a brake on those actions. Any thoughts you might have on place of state supreme courts, Vermont, in particular, in terms of slowing or pausing what seems, at least on its face, often to be unconstitutional active? So I wanna be I do have thoughts, and I'm

[Michael Drescher (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: gonna share them. But I also wanna preface them by saying I need to be careful to abide by the code of judicial conduct that prohibits, engaging in political activity. Concern is that our judiciary be apolitical. And I do not want anything I say in this process to interfere with its ability to do that, especially if unfortunate enough to to to be confirmed. My thoughts, I think without being political. I have observed members of this committee and other members of the general assembly proposing political solutions to some of the problems that you've described. And I applaud any member of the general assembly for doing that and engaging in those problems and searching for political solutions. It is not the role of a judge or the supreme court to engage in policy or political judgments. I view the role of the court to make, to honor the political judgments and the legislative process and to not interfere with those, solutions that the that the legislative process generates, unless there is an extraordinary situation where there is a compelling case that there's a constitutional problem with it. I view the rule of the judiciary as giving the political branches wide burden. I agree with deference as they come up with solutions to these problems. And I see the same problems you do. And I encourage you and your colleagues to come up with those solutions. But when those, laws come before the supreme court, obviously I can't comment on any of the details or any of the bills that are in play now. I can pledge to you that I will that the conduct of general assembly will be accorded the ultimate presumption of good faith. It will be given the ultimate presumption of regularity, and it will be honored unless there's a compelling case that there is some transcendent constitutional problem that you lose. And I think that is the role of the state supreme court acting in particular. A court only decides cases that come before it. It's not in the trenches in the same way that members of this committee and the senate and the house are in searching for those solutions. But it's important that the court stay out of the way of the political branches as they come up with those solutions.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: I I appreciate the answer. I I would just say, taking the judicial system writ large on up to the Supreme Court, it does seem to me that the unitary executive theory is now enshrined in DC. And many people, including myself, I mean, the only break on that is not lawmakers because what we do takes so long to do, but it stays from courts to prevent immediate harm from suing from unconstitutional decisions. So that's that was primarily what I was thinking about was not questioning that it is our job to write laws, but those laws occur on a different timeline than, request for an emergency stay or something like that.

[Michael Drescher (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: So, you know, when somebody resorts to the courts to challenge executive action, and I'm going to I anticipate talking about my time in court defending executive actions as an advocate. It is critical for that court to fairly and impartially weigh the equities of the situation, weigh the balance of the hardships between whatever the executive branch is trying to do and whatever effect it may have on the individual or the groups or the community that it's affecting. It has to assess the likelihood of the merits on the underlying claim and put that into the mixer and decide whether something should be stopped on a preliminary basis. I've observed the United States Supreme Court doing or failing to do exactly what you've described myself. And and I think it would be wrong to comment or editorialize on, what they've done or failed to do in any particular case. I do have a concern about that court being, becoming estranged from the political realities, becoming idiosyncratic unto itself. And I think based upon that concern and informed by that concern, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed to be on the Vermont Supreme Court, I think it is critical that that a a highest court that not happen. Now the genus of the Vermont is every six years, the justices are subject to review by the general assembly. So there is an inherent check on that risk given the genius of the Vermont system. Maybe the federal system would have been better served by that type of you can pick that argument either way because it's important to have a high degree of job security in that job, because much of what a judge is called on to do sometimes is counter majoritarian, to protect the rights of the disfavored or for the vulnerable, even if there's a majority that would would otherwise be inclined to do that. I hope that addresses your observations. Appreciate it. I

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So I wanted to address one thing that you had mentioned in your application. I couldn't find the exact age number, but I believe you had referred to two high profile immigration cases in your application. Generally, I don't make assumptions, but are you referring to the Renisa Oster and Mohsen Madawi cases? Yes. And I'd like to give you an opportunity to share your perspective on your role in those two cases. And, yeah, your role in those two cases. Thank you. I appreciate that by

[Michael Drescher (Nominee for Associate Justice, Vermont Supreme Court)]: virtue of the position I had for the last year and by virtue of my decision to litigate those cases myself when they were assigned to the office, many people might perceive me because they think I played a role in carrying out the administration's immigration policies, or that I had anything to do with a decision to revoke somebody's visa or immigration status or to take somebody into immigration custody. I assure the committee that nobody in any United States attorney's office across the country has anything to do with that level of policy making or execution of immigration. My job you know, when when for the last year, I've been a government attorney, and it's the job of a government attorney to, represent the government in court and to make the best arguments advocating for the legality of the conduct of the government when it's challenged. I think it would be unfair to conclude that I somehow personally supported the policies of the government simply because I was an advocate for those policies in court. It would be similar to suggesting that a criminal defense lawyer should be responsible for her client's crimes. Right. A hospital lawyer is responsible for the malpractice his or her client is accused of. Or that a prosecutor is responsible for conducting the traffic stop that's being challenged in court. There's a significant difference between the role of the advocate and the person whose conduct is being challenged. I also want to emphasize what I did and what I did not do during the course of representing the government in those spaces and and why. In March, I saw, like everybody else did, I saw the video of Ms. Oster getting arrested off the streets in Massachusetts. I later learned that what had happened a week or so earlier was, and this is all in the public record, that the State Department had revoked her student visa. And and there was a memo issued around the decision to do that, and that, the Department of Homeland Security decided that she should be arrested under immigration authorities. At that time, I had no expertise in immigration law. I saw that video and considered it to be irregular, to say the least. Ms. Ozark was and is fortunate to have an extraordinary legal team at her corner led by the ACLU. They immediately challenged her detention in the Federal Court of Massachusetts then. Out of the blue, from our perspective, the judge in Boston transferred that case to Vermont. We became aware of that transfer order late in the afternoon on April 4, which was a Friday. The following day, April 5, news stories came out that the Department of Justice was starting the process of firing a very well regarded immigration attorney within the Department of Justice, Erez Ravany, who has since become a pretty high profile whistleblower. The news reports at that time indicated that the reason he was being fired was that the bosses in DC did consider that he had not represented the government's interests sufficiently zealously when he, among other things, admitted that Guillermo Abrigo had been removed by mistake. So on April 5, the day the news of that essentially, the the start of the firing process came out, we also learned that the Vermont US Attorney's Office was going to be assigned responsibility for representing the government in the case of which I was terminated. At this point, I'm the leader of the office. At this point, I had been a civil aid USAID for and practiced mostly the civil court for more than half of my career. I'd also been a criminal a USA. And I consider myself qualified to represent, the administration in court. And I could not, in good conscience, subject anybody in the office to being in that position. I concluded that if anybody was gonna be fired, it was gonna be hateful. Would I have preferred somebody else to have been in the trenches in that case? Absolutely. But that would have been the wrong thing to do as a leader of the office and as a leader of legal about the Medicare needs. So I took a crash course in that area of immigration law, and I spoke with other lawyers in the department to come up with this meeting. I prepared our briefings, and I showed up in the floor. And that note did I make a brutal argument that was not serious, that was not founded, maybe it was a language of the statute. And at no time did I knowingly misrepresent any facts. My job was to be an ethical advocate on behalf of the government. My job was to reinforce the norms of judicial review of executive action. My job was to help the court, in making whatever decision it was gonna make to have the best possible argument on one side of the case. I, As I said a moment ago, the oath I took was to defend and protect the constitution of The United States. And what that meant to me at that time was my job was to defend the constitutional system that provides for the judiciary to review the challenged acts of the executive. And I'm proud that I played a role in doing that. I'll make a couple more points. The hearings surrounding the Ozark and the Dowie cases, I have to say, was Vermont at its finest. There were protests outside the courthouse. They were completely peaceful. They closed the the road in front of the courthouse. The courtrooms were packed with people all supporting the other side of the litigation. I have no doubt that I was the least popular person in the court on the end of his hearing. And for today's purposes, part of that experience that I think is especially important is the manner in which the judge has adjudicated those hearings, Judge Sessions, Judge Crawford, Judge Rice, and later high profile cases. They challenged both sides respectfully and with dignity. They came on the bench completely prepared. They asked all the right questions. And the manner in which they presided over those hearings made clear that the system of judicial review of executive action was going to work, that the rule of law was going to be okay. So it's very much my hope that people understand that my role as an advocate in those hearings was not because I had personal or political affinity for the administration. It's because I'd taken both to defend the constitution, and that I thought it would be unfair and unreasonable and the wrong choice as a leader of the office to have anybody other than myself manage those cases in court.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. So we are five minutes over time, and I hate to leave on a cliffhanger. I do have several follow-up questions. I know some other members also have questions. So I will probably follow-up with Terry and Judge Zone to get you back here as soon as possible so that we can finish this. I will close by saying that I appreciate your candor and what you've shared. Questions are some of the questions that I will be asking the next time you're here will relate to my concerns about prosecutorial discretion when these cases when you did take these cases on as the lead prosecutor. So that's the cliffhanger for today. But we will be back in touch with you promptly to continue this hearing and also allow Aunt Janie or the rest of the committee to also ask their questions. So thank you.