Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Retired Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court]: We are live.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Alright. Good morning. We are back in senate judiciary. It's January 22. We have retired chief justice here with us. And and if if you'd like to join us at the witness chair, you are more than welcome, sir. And I'll just briefly highlight that the mister reached out with a request to speak generally about the Supreme Court rather than any specific nominee. That that's how that that was my understanding. Correct. And I think and I pulled the committee and briefly discussed it, and it seems certainly seems fitting that we hear from the entire chief justice of the Vermont Supreme Court about the Supreme Court and this process. So the floor is yours, and thank you for being here.

[Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Retired Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court]: Thank you, mister chairman. And I thank the committee for bringing my request to appear today, And Senator Hashim has indicated, my appearance is not on behalf of the nominees in order to refresh them for the executive review of the branches. I've been prompted to testify because we are in a time of extraordinary peril to the rule of law. I know that's a concern by this committee and far beyond. I cannot blame the outstanding to address it beyond our bodies. For I speak today in the hope that my experience as a nominee in justice will provide a helpful perspective as this committee decides the confirmation of recommendations debate on two nominees before you. If I may, I will make an opening statement, that more fully explains my reasons for being here. If I timed it correctly, less than fifteen minutes, but about that, and then, of course, I won't have a chance to respond to any questions. I also take the liberty, if I may, of, very briefly giving you some chronology since I had to go back and confirm these dates myself. I doubt that the years my relevant experience springing directly to your monkeys. I was elected attorney general in 1984. I was reelected six times. In '5 of those elections, by the nomination of the Republican and Democratic parties. In 1997, very shortly after being sworn in to my seventh term as attorney general, I was nominated by governor Dean to be chief justice of the Vermont Supreme Court. It was a nomination, no one expected, least of all the nominees. I was sworn in as chief justice on, 01/31/1997, served on the court till the 2004 when I left to become a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School. I was there for ten years, during which, among my responsibilities, I initiated committee and study of judicial leadership. As you know, these hearings began, one week ago, with the testimony of nominee Christine Nolan, who I've just met for the first time today. Christine began, as I did when I was the nominee, by thanking her spouse. There are moments in one's life where the magnitude of what is before you brings home, the journey you take with one another. And I'm sure Michael Drescher, helped that as well. But here, and I must ask, for Christina and the committee's indulgence, it was Christina's tribute to her wife that struck me with a special force because it was twenty nine years ago to the day that I was before this committee that has an nominee. I was reasonably certain I would be confirmed, pretty certain, but with less reason, that I could do a decent job, and most certain about the issues that would be before the point. I did not foresee a case that would one day enable a nominee with the launch of Green Forth to introduce this committee the same sex partner as a spouse. And neither did this committee, and neither did any of the legislators if in purging as Chief Justice. The significance of the Baker decision, at least for me, in the context of these hearings, is that it reminds us that the Vermont Supreme Court may be called upon to decide issues that are not foreseen by the justice, the legislation, or the public. It's also a reminder that in those rare but historically significant instances where a decision of the law Supreme Court has profound consequences for all reminders. The court's authority comes from the public state that justices were selected in a nonpartisan process. In the many years of reading coverage of Vermont Supreme Court decisions, I've never seen an account of those opinions of a divided court attributed to the party affiliation of the governor who appointed justice. But over those same years, every account of the divided opinions of the United States Supreme Court contains, in fact, often begins by identifying the political party of the president who appointed the justice. This was a joke, is a foreseeable resolve of a political cauldron that has made every nomination of a justice in the United States Supreme Court attests to farcen employment. It is why in my judgment, most Americans view decisions of the United States Supreme Court as products of politics. And it is why Vermonters believe, and their right to be, that the decisions of the Vermont Supreme Court are not. So one of the reasons I believe it was important for me to be here today is to emphasize the significance deciding the confirmation of judicial nominees on the basis of qualifications in a manner that keeps faith in Vermont's nonpartisan tradition of judicial confirmations. I was about to say that I cannot imagine what I can and so can you, what it would have been like if the Baker opinion directing the legislature to establish equal rights for same sex couples had been decided by justices who were placed on the bench by a partisan confirmation process. But I do understand that decisions you will make on the nominees are not without conscience. I'm sure for more constituents than is usual for judicial nomination hearings. I know that you will hear testimony in response to those concerns, various by members of the community and others. I do offer one observation, unsolicited though it may be. In these tumultuous times, I would be wary of the shadow that President Trump cast over every debate and decision. Everything he touches, and he seemed to touch everything, stands up to be about him. But a judicial confirmation is first and foremost about the fitness of a nominee to serve on the court. This is not the first time that the Senate Judiciary Committee has had to decide whether to recommend a nominee whose participation as the government lawyer in a controversial case was questioned by many, including members of the Senate Judiciary. There is, I believe, an instructive lesson to be drawn from the confirmation hearings of Judge Dean Pinellas. In 1984, the state attempted a mass abuse state police force to take into custody children who believed were being abused at the Northeast Kingdom Community Church. It's what noted in history as the parade on Isles Of Honor. It has been described as one of the most notorious events from law's legal and political misery. I was then a first time candidate for attorney general, and the description does not overstate the magnitude the event, which was on page and it was across the country. Judge Franklin of Haiti, in dismissing the warrants, characterized the decision of governor Snelling to intervene in Island Bond as a grossly unlawful scheme. Dean Pinellas was Governor Snelling's legal prosecutor. Days, not unlike the ones implicated in these hearings, came a flat point for those who were concerned about the nominees' role as a public lawyer as a commander to civil liberties. But as John Fenellis himself has noted, many herckered witnesses gave a more accurate picture of who I was. Dean Fennellis became one of Vermont's most respected jurist. And he can't let cap that with a decade of distinguished role as an international judge. I cite that example knowing that past is not always controlled. But if you decide not only to disqualify, your confirmation should, in my judgment, be informed by your own judgment of the nominees' integrity. I close by offering my own perspective about judging and judicial authority. Part of my most judicial experience at Harvard was working with state and federal judges on issues of judicial authority and leadership. I found that some judges, this was more true of federal than state judges, appear to believe they have been dropped from the sky in their robes to the authority of the law. The authority of the law does not come from judges. It comes from the people who are not meant to campaign, function of people, you had a chair or at Franklin County Dairy Days. It comes from a spirit of liberty that one of America's greatest judges, the divine, has. The spirit that is not too sure is right. He added words that have a good reason and cited often the past few months. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies, there no constitution, no law, no court can save him. No constitution, no law, no court can do much to help it. I courted Judge Hand in my inaugural remarks as chief justice. I was sworn in by Governor Dean in the House chamber, special day, as you might imagine, who knew I had prepared an address to the full House. You began by saying, I will have the briefest remarks. I'm already done.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: But

[Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Retired Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court]: I persisted, and I've gone back to look at what I said that day. And indeed, there is something about judging that made sense to me then, that I now know is right. There is, said a judge, by his own traditional experience, a mystery that defies analysis. Perhaps it would be better to say that a judge's cases take hold of oneself and pull things up, and that it is a judge's business to be sure to keep the proper supplies on hand as far as one could imagine them. I believe that to be true. The judge's proper supplies are the same values that are imbued in the Vermonters providing justice to the legal authority: integrity, hard work, compassion, common sense, and abiding respect for the digging deep of the individual and the value of community. Those are the qualities I would look for in a nominee to the board. And I would do so no matter how dark a shadow Donald Trump can pass open. Take your questions.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you very much for your testimony. I think just a a a comment and an appreciation of your mentoring regarding the nonpartisan aspects of this process. And as you can imagine, the the balancing and the challenge of the hundreds of emails that we may receive, that are artisan in nature and the discipline that we should be expected to exercise when looking at the qualifications rather than assumptions about a person's personal political leanings, it's a challenge. And I appreciate the time.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Committee, any questions? I do have one. Thank you so much. I appreciate your point of view, and I share it in almost every aspect. I'm wondering, and then I ask him this question that I am facing every day as a senator. I think you're right to say people should not overreact to the shadow of Donald Trump, who is, in my own opinion, very open about his attempts to weaken the rule of law, in some cases to suspend it altogether. But I'm wondering, when you think about judging in the age of Trump or justicing in the age of Trump, You're you're faced with not just Donald Trump, but with people who have copied his approach. And so we have things like people winning elections, but not being sworn in to momentarily tilt the balance. We have things like agents roaming our streets, operating in ways that most Americans, the majority of Americans find repugnant. And I'm wondering in terms of the bench, as average citizens, I think in general, we need to be tougher, more involved, and more ready to combat these types of things. What change in posture, if any, do you think justices on the state Supreme Court need to make for the age of Trump? I understand that our ideals need to remain the same, but there are practical questions that now fall exclusively in many cases to the judiciary. Is there a difference in attitude that justices need to bring, or or is it the same as it was twenty five years ago and they just need to maintain?

[Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Retired Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court]: Well, I don't think anything's there's more changes. When I went back at his remarks, Chuck, twenty five years ago, his life has changed and nothing has changed for it. And I would say Donald Trump's disregard for the rule of law and what that means. And I say that, but I'm waiting to be. I just want to preface that by saying, having some experience of growing up in Vermont, been going from public office. I had some understanding of dividing this country. I had some understanding of my. And I do think that the sensitivity that one needs from judges on any court, but particularly on state court, are the sensitivities that are driven by, guided by the context of previous decisions and our constitution. Vermont Supreme Court has been No. It's a part of it. Don't mean it. It's a self serving statement, but it has been one of the most respected state courts in The United States, and some of its decisions have had national impacts, of course. And I think that's because the justices, That's all you have to an asshole. You have to start getting off of it or you need something like a related. I do think, you know, one of the reasons that you have a Supreme Court that is so isolated from concerns of the average citizen is you haven't had anybody on the Supreme Court since Sandra Day O'Connor actually served as legislative position or as a legislature. Earl Warren came from was attorney general of California, governor of California. He knew something about what it was like. He elected and taught people. And I don't think he ever lost his that much. And when you look at the his opinion of Brown versus Board of Education, no. He spoke a solid opinion. That's a good opinion. That's a working opinion. So I think that's the that's what yeah. I would say that best way to ensure that this stays true to the values that we all share is just to ensure that everybody is working on the integrity, the opposite of all the patients, but the integrity and and the the where they came from. Guess that's why drop from the sky. I mean, I my my experience with some some judges is they're largely once and once they've gone straight through by doing some of the clerkship with the US Supreme Court, All the rest that ever have really been out there. We actually learned something about how law affects So I guess it's a long history, but it's best I can. You.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any other left and center listening?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: We do. And the first one is a little bit of a jump off of senator Baruth's question, and it's just to sort of get a sense of what the Vermont Supreme Court's role is sort of a backstop to those federal erosions of many rights.

[Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Retired Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court]: Well, I think the backstop is that Vermont had there's certain instances where where a particular Vermont Supreme Court would be preempted. But where it's where it's not, you know, have a constitutionalist. You know, one of the, I think, one of the great arguments of American democracy. Right? And, for example, common benefits clause, so that was the basis of Congress, the board decided that it's a constitutional right to the rights and obligations of duties of of of of of of of And that's, see, I'm of most of familiar with, of course, there are other examples of insurgent seizure, certainly in arrests, where the Vermont Supreme Court looks to its own constitution, and where it can, I think, you know, it's a backstop and a least sensitive topic before this as a person? And then you always have been as an example of what you've done in in the state and what courses that this may have some precedent elsewhere. But you think you're right. It's and so the economy is certainly important and every now understand and appreciate the extent of racial in the Marah constitution states. It's just so documented.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I'm also wondering, and maybe, I know you spend time at the attorney general here in Vermont, I'm trying to understand sort of the different way that our federal system, court system, and our state system work and how much overplay, how much overlap there is.

[Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Retired Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court]: Well, mean, the overlap would be First overlap would not overlap at all. There's certain areas where the, where the either federal law or or a decision of United States Supreme Court is preempted safe and going anything. That's happened. That's happened. I can give you one example from my own experience. The legislature in ancient history had passed a law to prohibit milk.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yes.

[Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Retired Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court]: But that law was preempted by a type of law, right? Then other examples of course going on in the pharmacy. There's also this course where you where you work with the federal attorney general, for example, working with the US attorney's office and investigation and and prosecution. So there's certainly a few instances of those of of of lab, but, you know, I do say that okay. Responding what what I think is underlies everybody's concern. Said, when the those one in your number, report Three important benches probably as well are are those who are tuned to both the Vermont constitution and what kind of like the. And again, that's why I think it's just important to think about that. And the focus is in terms of confirmation, particularly on what we can do in the blind. What what we do here is pretty important. I'm just thinking as I can't get in the front of the quotation side. This is a beautiful you know, I haven't been here in so long. I've just been I hated every January sideways moving in front of the center of the tree. But there's a quotation from the Galvin Cooper tree to the wall here. By the spirit of living dies, he can't be replenished from the brave state of the mind. Yeah. Well, awesome.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: That's helpful. My last question, and this is big one, is and and you spoke to it some you know, I think there are certainly the on paper resume qualifications, but I also imagine, and maybe you disagree with me, that the there's a real importance in public trust in our systems. And I wonder for you what role that public trust in the system plays in thinking about who sits spring weather, really, in any judicial role? Well, you know, was

[Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Retired Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court]: trying to describe that in my opening remarks that public health is is key. Right? It's particularly key for. Because you're sure you're right. I mean, one of the things I've thought a lot about sometimes it's but the authority of a court is court doesn't have to pay this. It doesn't have an army. US marshals don't work for the court. Someone decides to disobey an order of the United States Supreme Court, president, for example. What resources in the court and court doesn't have anything other than politics across, right, and and and the judiciary. And in in that, I think part of the way, it's not all the way, but part of the way you get is to make sure that choosing justices nonpartisan. That you that go back to. I know what you're talking about. People lived through through any part of baker of African nation. It's from a distance, means not to distinguish. So it is probably seems like we need milk, but the aftermath of that was unclear what anything. It was unclear what Vermont was going to do. So I'll be clear what the nation was. And I know Franklin County and probably counting where I'm from, all the rest. Those were those were difficult times, and the only I think, and it was the legislature that had a much greater burden than they wanted facing this. But I think

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Go ahead.

[Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Retired Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court]: I don't think it would have been possible that it had come out of the other side of that if the court had looked if the republic had looked at that They didn't quote and said, well, there's the three liberals and two conservatives appointed they're appointed by you know, this is all Trump Bush group as some might look of perspective. So, that's where the public so public trust comes from there. And it's not just to diminish the tough decisions you have. I understand. I think I understand this. But I can't just say anything. I focus on what I think is bedrock of from Washington's judicial system, and that's public's belief in its nonpartisan independence.

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: Thank you.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I just have one more that came up as you

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I'd to make sure that other senators also have an opportunity that are running up on time. Then we have a lot of back. But other senators, do you have any? I'm good for

[Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Retired Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court]: the moment. And I went to the meeting. Okay. You

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: were on the bench with Baker decision. Yes? Yes. I was. I imagine, and from what I've heard from legislators that were in the legislature at that time, that that was a very charged time with lots of very intense opinions. I'm wondering if you ever had experiences, and I hope the answer is no, where those intense opinions boil over and perhaps you received threats or you received very intense betrayal directed due to what was going on.

[Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Retired Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court]: Yeah. I I certainly did. I think some legislators were at a greater risk than than who's I had somebody come through the store that if I had to go to the. And I know there are senators in what what'd you say? Extreme threat. So, you know, temperature hasn't gone down any today. So, you know, I I guess. Don't know. So speaking from a you're unhappy if one's unhappy then I would guess maybe the privacy. You can say, geez, no. Thanks a lot, son. You can imagine once once you said your thoughts, Supreme Court had been said, we believe first that something was that you're making determination. So how you establish your rights and put that's part of the legislature. I said, you know, and I saw earlier difficult political decision. No question about it. No Thank question.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: You very much. Appreciate your time. Thanks again for reaching out. Let's do

[Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Retired Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court]: Thanks Thank you. Thank you. To.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Okay. We are right on time. Alright.

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: Sitting on your shoulders. Do

[Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Retired Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court]: you want me

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: now? Yes. Thank you.

[Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Retired Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court]: I'll switch gears here. Good morning. Morning.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So we are back for the second and presumably final hearing for which we provide the opportunity for miss Nolan to respond to any testimony, good, bad, or indifferent. And essentially, of the testimony that we have received, has been written testimony for this. I know every senator, especially those of this committee, have been receiving in their inboxes, and we also have a long list of testimonies that has been written testimony to the state page. Presumably, you've been, looking at those I believe I've seen all of them. Yes. And I'm I'm assuming you've, perhaps formed opinions or potential responses to some of these testimonies, if not all of them. And this is also an opportunity for us to ask any final questions before we move on to voting next week. Absolutely. So I'll give the floor to you, if you have any opening remarks and responses. I do have

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: a few. I'll try to keep it brief and I'm of course interested in what your questions are.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: We do have an hour. Okay. So sometimes it's best to

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: see what you're interested in. And so I'll leave time for that. First of all, it's good to see you all again. It's been really nice to meet you in this process. I guess I've had stuff you and you before, but I know it's nice to meet you. And thank you for having me back for this opportunity. I just wanted to start by saying that it has been an honor to be a part of this democratic process, this process that you've created. And since I was like, you've been for it. I think it's been inspiring to see Vermont democracy at work. We do things differently here. I like it. And I appreciate being a part of it. It's made me very proud to be a Vermonter. And I've always been proud to be a Vermonter, but I'm telling you no less so than now and for being in this process. And I appreciate the dynamics that you were pointing out, Senator, and how difficult your jobs are. You kindly recognize, you know, that the nominees have been under pressure, but I understand that you all are under pressure too. And I appreciate the good work you're doing. I want to thank all citizens who wrote letters in this process, no matter what they said. It is just I can't overstate how inspiring it is to see this level of citizen engagement and citizen action. And that is, I will just say that, is so, I will say, is so important for citizens everywhere to be engaged on these important issues. Who Vermonters are, and as this process shows, and I'm just very proud of it, I wanted to I'm going to add a little here and just say that for all of those Vermonters who wrote in, that's who I want to serve. I wanted to and I had talked about Senator Vyhovsky, you and I had talked about the concept of a bulwark. Think I had said I would want to be a bulwark. And you kind of sort of brought this up again. And I think that you're absolutely onto something. Think that Vermont Supreme Court is the backstop in many ways, because we have a separate legal system and we do things differently here. And I would say that I guess I'm just thinking over here, not only do I want to be a backstop and a bulwark, want to be what I think a justice should be when they're upholding the rule of law, a backstop and a bulwark. But more than that, I just want to come back to something that I said in my last testimony, is that the Vermont Supreme Court has been ahead of civilization on so many issues in the past, some of which former justice Amazoid just touched on. And so I don't just wanna be a bank account. I wanna be a model for civilization. I really believe that the Vermont Supreme Court has been that. When you look at its jurisprudence on slavery, fifty years ahead of the rest of the world, on gay marriage, or the rights of same sex couples. I want to continue in that tradition of being a model. Not just wait and be a backstop, but be a model for getting things right. People don't want to wait fifty years for courts to get things right. And so I'll leave it at that. That's the kind of justice I want to take. The comments that I wanted to address, of course, pending your questions, I wanted to touch on my state court experience again, and also the fact that I am a defense attorney, because I think maybe there's still some misunderstanding there. I wanted to make sure I can be as clear as I can about my experience. I have been a criminal and civil trial and appellate litigator in state court for the last five years, including today. Of course, I'm not litigating anything right now due to the ethical boundaries, but that's my job. I'm a criminal and civil litigator in state court, also in federal court. My state court practice has brought me to the counties. These are the ones I can remember, but in the course of my state court practice, I've been to Orange, Windsor, Windham, but knows about Windham, Addison, Rutland, Memorial, Washington, and Chittenden Counties. Those are the ones I can remember. These are for superior court appearances in the Civil, Family, and Probate Divisions. And again, this is practiced as a criminal defense attorney and civil litigator. And just for some perspective on that five years of experience I have in all those Vermont state courts and all the counties in my current job, I served, I've done that for five years. I served as U. S. Attorney for more than three years, and the three years is because the U. S. Senate didn't confirm me until the very 2017. So I really only had three years of that job. And then over the course of my state practice, and again, I just want Vermonters to understand that I've done a lot of it, in a portion of my state practice, my law partners will tell you I've become sort of the firm's resident expert on some state law issues. So they come to me in the firm about RFAs, anti stocking petitions, CHINS litigation, and all of these different, of course, criminal defense work, of these different things I've done in my state court practice. So I'm in the state court practicing every day. That's where I'll be again. I hope I'm confirmed that that's where I'll be again if I'm not confirmed. And wanted to say, then I just on the overall skill set of being a judge, I am confident, and I think, you know, if you saw my references, I think my references are too, at some of the supportive letters that came in, I am confident that I have the research and writing skills, and just the intimate understanding and familiarity with the courtroom at both the trial and appellate level, to get to the bottom of any Vermont legal issue, as complex as it is. But I think the five years in state court are obviously not the help of that. I wanted to say regarding my criminal defense practice, again, I'm a proud criminal defense attorney practicing in state and federal court, I have been for five years. Prior to that, when I was younger, was a long time ago in some ways, but I was at Goodwin in Boston, a larger law firm in Boston when I came out of law school. And out of that firm, I did represent criminal defendants. In fact, you you have to look back at your life and remember these things. That's mostly what I did at Goodwin is criminal defense. And then I also sought out work on the pro bono on the Innocence Project. I don't want to say too much of the client, but worked with one client where he was seeking to prove his innocence and I can't tell there's a whole procedural story, but I mean, became very close with this man. And so I'm proud of my pro bono work that I did at Goodwin for criminal defendants. And I did that for for nearly five years. That worked down in Boston. So it's just when you look back at your life, I'm realizing that I've spent actually more time as a criminal defense attorney than as a line prosecutor. And if you add in the time as US attorney, it's about a decade as a defense attorney and a decade as a prosecutor. I've, you know, for what that's worth, I want to clarify that. So just, to sum up, I hope that you will find this experience to be well rounded, you know, varied and diverse. And I believe, I know that I can bring the view from all sides

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: of the courtroom each day

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: to the Vermont Supreme Court. I can bring the view of all sides. And indeed, if you honor me with this job, I will bring the humanity of my clients to the court. I will bring their experiences, their stories, their backgrounds with me to the court. I will carry them with me and I will not forget them. And I just, in closing, and I will close, I do understand, I really do understand that there are still going to be some people who would rather have a different kind of person than me than this job. And you know perhaps someone who's never been a prosecutor, perhaps somebody who spent even more time in state court. And I understand and I can't change those things about me and I'm not trying to do as you know, I have to be mean. And what I can say is that I understand and I recognize their point that the governor did have any number of other terrific and qualified lawyers to choose from. Judges and lawyers, he did. And what I'm going to say about that recognition is that it's just incredibly humbling, but it's also incredibly motivating. What I mean by that is, if I'm so fortunate as to be confirmed by you, I intend to be an excellent justice for all Vermonters, including those who have doubts. And I'm motivated to be that for them. And I promise you and them that I will faithfully and fairly apply the law to the facts and the constitution to the facts, uphold the rule of law, protect our rights, and make good decisions for Vermonters of today and and for generations to come.

[Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Retired Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court]: Thank you. I

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: do have we have just two questions. And this goes to political issue that was raised several years ago at this point and a position that you held in regarding a policy proposal that is now part of our constitution. Several years ago, you expressed skepticism about proposition five, which are now article 22 of our constitution. And I want and I know that you're propelled by the rules of the different conducts, but I'm wondering to what extent, if any, can you describe how you interpret article 22 now, and if if you're able to describe it, if you got that same skepticism.

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: Well, can't say anything about how I would interpret an article that is going to come that that could come before me. Have no idea if it will. Here's what I will tell you, and please, here, this is really important. That is the constitution. I will support, defend, and uphold the constitution. I pledge it and I will take an oath and I will uphold it. Whatever cripples are concerned I raise about the language. As you know, I'm not going to talk about my current politics or my view of any law that could come before me. As you know, in 2022, I think, should say, as you know, perhaps you know, I was a pro choice candidate. I took a lot of positions. But the bottom line is that is part of the constitution. I will support and defend it, and I will apply it faithfully. I will follow the constitution. The constitution is supreme, and I will follow it. And I guess just on my positions in 2022, my positions sometimes change, and I want to point out that this is a very fast changing world that we're living in. But they are irrelevant to the job of faithfully applying and upholding and defending the constitution. I will defend the constitution of compromise. I will not substitute any of my personal political views. We are people. Right? Even even judges are people. I will not substitute any personal political view, whether it's a barrage stroke view or a nuanced view, for the law. I will follow the law. And again, I guess I'll just say the reason you can be sure I can do that is because of some of the positions I took in a primary in 2022. I was a choice candidate. I supported and these are positions I'm just talking about the record, not my current positions and not how I would rule. But I supported a woman's right to choose, and I called for federal legislation to restore that right across the country. So I'll leave it at that. And I supported Justice Jackson's nomination to the US Supreme Court because I thought she was well qualified and I supported federal legislation, which ultimately passed, to protect gay marriage in the event that it should be struck down by the Supreme Court. I'm talking about a historical record that I just want to make sure that those points are out there. And since one of the letters said this, I will correct this too, I did not in that campaign endorse Chittenden. That did not happen. Nor was I endorsed by him. In fact, another fellow was. And I didn't seek his endorsement. I've never met him. I've never communicated with him. It's just the fact that I rebutted. And it's not historical. I just want to set the factual record straight. None of those positions that I just outlined were popular in a Republican primary, and the results bear that up. And so be it. So be it. Because I will do what I think is right. I will do what I think is right regardless of whether it's personally or professionally advantageous to me, regardless of how many people it reasons, regardless if it's popular or most voters would like it, I will stand on principle in this job, and I will follow the law in support to defend the

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: constitution of the law. You. And, actually, I answered my second question. So I'll answer that. Any other questions to Well, the

[Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Retired Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court]: only question I have was it appears to be a statement at this point in time because many emails and letters of song we've been getting reference to these two nominees. One being yourself is, what are your thoughts on as the public is looking at this, as to sending two prosecuting attorneys to the Vermont Supreme Court? But you've explained that you have spent probably more time as a defense attorney than as a a prosecutor, but that was to happen. What were your thoughts on that? Or maybe reiterate that to someone, your thoughts on sending through prosecutor.

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: You'd be sending a defense attorney in me. And I just, I'm proud of that work, so I just, and I love it. I love that work. I'm not, so I'll just leave it at that. So I think there is a diversity in the choices that are being made. And I can only speak for myself. I bring, I think, a very diverse background, having worked with, having advocated on both sides of the show and having worked with so many different people in different forms of trouble, duress, the worst moments in their lives. I think that bringing that real world experience to the bench is gonna bring some diversity to the bench, at least I hope so in Vutkukran.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: So filling off your last answer, I if you can't find it in my time, of course, but your application, if I remember right, makes, at least in one place, reference to having experienced bias or prejudice yourself. And I think that's an important thing for the court to have is an awareness that there are systemic bias and that justices on that court have experienced that and bring that into their decision making. I'm wondering if you can broaden it out. We heard from the rest of the same story about the, You know, the bigger case and the follow on from that. But I'm wondering, your own experience, I'm imagining it gives you empathy for other groups that are experiencing that, especially in this moment. And I'm wondering if you could just talk a little bit about that, what might bring to the court based on your own experience pushing against the system that was, you know, in some moments attempting to injure.

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: Yeah, I mean, think that, you know, I don't, I quoted, think, it was Oliver Wendell Holmes when I said the life of a lives experience, and I think somebody else said I'm not a body plan. And I bet Justice Almisto, if she's here, knows exactly who it is. Under North Sloot. There you go. That's right. And so I do think that I think I what I can say about this is that there is bias and discrimination in the institutions in this world. I've seen it firsthand. It's also just in the air right now in a way we've never seen before. And so what I come back to is that the independence of the court and my commitment to pushing back against Not pushing back, but to being independent and open, as the canvas call it, or independence, having fealty to the law. But in those hard cases, we're going to have, if I'm confirmed, not going have, where there is ambiguity in the law. Because sometimes the drafters write the things with some room for interpretation because they expect court to come and decide some of those things. So when I do that, I will have in mind, as I said, I will carry in my heart the stories of discrimination I've stated. One thing that I don't ever get to talk about is I'm a plaintiff's anti discrimination attorney. I have people call me for plaintiff's discrimination work all the time, and I do those cases. There's not a lot of big law firms where people will take plaintiffs. They represent the defendants usually. And I've been really proud that my firm has become sort of a go to place for people who have experienced discrimination in the workplace and other settings, and I represent a lot of people in that regard. You have to think about the world and what's happening on the ground in those hard cases where our legislators have drafted laws in a way that leaves room for interpretation and experience and awareness of the trends in this world. And I just think that the level of bias and hatred and some of the things we're seeing on the ground are not going to be lost on. My experience is as a lawyer representing people who have felt those things, whether they're up against the weight of the federal government, their defendants, or they're people in a workplace, or they're me, because I've lived them too. I will never forget those things if I am so fortunate as to become justice. Any

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: other questions? Senator Boswell.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I appreciate you being back and and certainly, you know, referencing some of the so we have a lot of cases right now at the federal level that we need for legal for settlements. We believe for constitutional protections that are being overturned. Mhmm. And I I hear you say, you will have hold the constitution, you will have hold the law, I think that is your new president's working panel. And I wonder how you can speak to the fears of Vermonters that that will trickle down and impact that later in COVID.

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: I will be the bullwarden. I will be the bullwarden. But not only that, I want to be better than the bullwarden. I want to be ahead of I want to get things right before people suffer unnecessarily. And so, and how you do that is being an independent, nonpartisan, who faithfully applies the law and doesn't forget what's happening on the ground to people. So I hope that my if I'm confirmed, that I can give those those folks comfort that I'm I'm there to do those things for them.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I I really appreciate that. Some of the things, you know, as you know, I know, you know, did run through office in 2022 and made some statements that has explicitly been referenced and concerned, particularly around there being no such thing as a small drug offense. And some conversation around the overdose prevention center and how I mean, could read the quote, but I don't know if I need to. And my concern is that there's a fair large body of evidence that shows that their small nonviolent drug offenses absolutely shouldn't be thrown the book out and sent away forever and that OPCs save lives. And so how does that community, the community either doing that work or the community who have struggled with those things know that it will uphold their rights? Yeah, thanks for the question.

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: I've answered it a few different ways. Think maybe you're talking about the Brattleboro remarks I made. I don't know exactly. But I think I said that there's no small drug trafficking events, and I was talking about fentanyl events and other things. However, never, unless there was some other factor, ever charged somebody for being addicted to drugs. That is absolutely the wrong approach. And more than that, know, as my friend Justin Bouley wrote in his letter for me, I stood up in the Justice Department and said, and I forgot I said this until I read his letter, that we cannot charge our way out of these problems. The ideal you can't charge your way out of any public safety problem, but the ideal is to have a holistic approach in which law enforcement is copping up our treatment and prevention communities because we want in a perfect world, we would eliminate the name and we would get people into treatment. And so I tried to charge cases with that in mind and also to very specifically work with Justin to go to community centers, treatment centers, schools, to try and say, Hey, don't get into this in the first place. Education, we need education. And also, every stance I took was with an eye going, How do we get people into treatment? And so for the overdose prevention, I want to answer that. I'm glad you asked. That was a position I took fully a decade ago when I had adjustments for him as US Attorney. And I thought it was important to put everybody on notice, that they're of the you know, to to be clear about what the federal framework was. So this isn't just about So what I was I thought it was important as the top federal law enforcement officer in Vermont to lay out the potential liability, civilly and criminally, for insurers, you know, insurers of the site, people who were running it, because that was my job. So I guess that's where I was coming from on that. Now it was ten years ago and I just want to make that clear. Am not commenting in any way on if any kind of litigation about those came before me. I just wanted you to know where I was coming from.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: No, I appreciate your help. The last question I think I have for you all, but I accept that to former Justice Amistoy and then his cancer made me have another. Sure. And it is just something that Chief Justice Amistre spoke to, and that is the intensity and the vitriol that he experienced at navigating civil unions, the fact that that's going to be much, much worse. How do you navigate that? You know? Same way. Sorry. Oh, no. It's a good I I mean, most recently, we have heard about you bringing a gun to a courthouse to navigate that. And and I'm I'm curious to Oh, know no.

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: I didn't bring it on purpose. Understood. Yeah.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: But but I'm curious to know, knowing that you're stepping into a space where you will get threats,

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: you there will be vitriol. I've already well, I look, in some ways I think my whole life has been a descent sometimes, you know, in the sense that I've done, I've lived in ways that are unpopular, I've taken positions that are unpopular. I do, I follow my heart and who I am, and I try to look true to who I am, and I try to always do the right thing. I've had many people not like me over the years, or be angry at me, or hateful of me. I've had well, you see, I mean, you see how things have gone for me in terms of popularity sometimes. So, I am strong enough, and then some, I promise you, to be disliked and still be very good.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: And I appreciate that. And I guess my question, and I wish this wasn't a question I had to ask, but I will tell you as a fellow woman in the political realm, get it. I've also gotten dumped from it. I've also gotten stalked. So I'm sorry. And I'm sorry that you have had this experience. It's horrific that that's the world we live in. I also am perfectly happy to be disliked. I mean, not happy, but I can manage it. We have to be It's okay if people don't like me. But I wanna make sure both that people can trust your sort of judgment in those moments that feel dangerous and that you're going to be okay.

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: Yes, yes. That's very nice of you. Thank you. I will be okay. I'm very confident of that. I don't want to elaborate. I'm built for this and I can do it, and I will do it. Faithfully and I will barely and partially apply the law no matter who likes it or who doesn't. And I worry about you too. Absolutely. And this is not a time for the faint of heart in a lot of ways. Just keep, you know, I recommend we all stay strong. I won't make that, I'm gonna do, I'm gonna be not gonna make that mistake. Because as you know, it wasn't not to be okay. And I regret that it happened. And, but So I'm not gonna be taking measures like that, but I'm gonna stay strong, because

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I hope all of you do. I

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: really appreciate that, and I really appreciate your willingness to admit that you were wrong and that you've made a mistake. And I hope that the reporting justice process was impactful, and you continue to carry that the importance of that, through whatever things take you. Absolutely.

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: I can't thank those people on the panel. Know they helped me with a lot of things related to it. So glad we have that as part of a pathway for people to go for the mod boards.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Kids are gonna be a life changing experience, unfortunately, one that is not afforded to everyone and certainly not ever afforded justly. I know of another case in the county where a woman who was going for an RFA Mhmm. Declared the gun at security and was immediately arrested and charged with a misdemeanor. So

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: And I can't speak to that.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: No. Of course not. But the fairness is is the piece that I want

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: to The justice system should be fair. And I I know

[Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Retired Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court]: that.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any any other questions?

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: I

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: was I was gonna say, you know, I've never I've been in, situations where we're voting for confirmations, never for Supreme Court, but going through the process, you're looking at the merits of each individual and what that position is that they're gonna be held. So along the lines of senator Vyhovsky, you know, kinda, you know, if you get a note, get an email, if you talk to somebody and they have support or against whoever that nominee is, I always try to look at it holistically and look through and listen through the noise, so to speak, because, you're gonna be representing the state of Vermont on the bench, and I appreciate the answer that you just made to senator Vyhovsky about your experience, your past experiences, what you've learned from those things, and admitting when you are, in fact, wrong and and grow from that. So my just process wise from what I've been going through, because never going through it, this is a big deal. Supreme Court of State of Vermont is a big deal and I know that. So each time I get a note or whatever from a constituent or anyone else across the state looking through and what they're saying and, you know, if there's any noise in there, being able to frame what my confirmation vote means and which way it goes. It's helpful having you here and be able to answer those questions because it has satisfied, some of

[Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Retired Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court]: the thoughts and concerns that I had going in. I appreciate that. Very welcome.

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: Thank you for asking. It's honored to be here.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yes. Just one final remark from myself regarding this other instance in the Windham County involving the firearm at Fordham. And my familiarity with the state's attorneys down there who might have known since 2011. I'm I'm familiar with only two instances in which somebody has been, in which somebody has taken a firearm to court and they know, knowing the state's attorneys down there, I do know that they take into consideration a variety of factors such as an individual's background, criminal background, their history, and then their context when they make decisions. And just wanted to put that out there. And also one totally different subject. There's I just wanted to clarify something I had mentioned earlier. I had mentioned the semantics here, but I had mentioned that I had received hundreds of emails, which were partisan in nature. I will reword that. I have received hundreds of emails, many of which, but not all, have been partisan in nature. That's that's all I got.

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: Thank you.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So thank you all. That adjourns this hearing. We will

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I did actually have another question. It was the same question I asked.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It's not

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: a term.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Sorry. It's the same question I asked the other nominee, and I just think it's only fair to, given that he put himself on the record, to put you on the record for that as well, and that is around your views of the death penalty.

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: Well, I'm not going to state my personal political beliefs. I can tell you what my work on the death penalty is. I settled two death penalty cases while I'm sorry, the first one was not settled by me. So there was, there were, when I was in the U. Attorney's Office, there was, so I'll, there was Michael Jakes case. That case was, settled for life in prison. And I was going to say that was me, but that wasn't. I was in the office though. Then there was the victim was named Cherry King. Can't remember, Michael. I'm not going be able to remember the defendant's name, but I was U. S. Attorney and there was a death penalty case. And it involved the brutal murder of an elderly woman who was kidnapped from a grocery store and beaten in the woods while she was buried and begged for her life. I that case was settled as a life imprisonment case, very my time. Now, the attorney general has to sign off on that. So, I don't want to say it was he that settled it, but the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, agreed to settle that for life imprisonment.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: And those are under the federal statutes.

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: Under the federal death penalty. Yeah. Given that

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: we have no death penalty in the state of Vermont unless, what is it, treason? I think there is one did we get rid of that? Anyways, that's

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: neither here nor there. Yeah.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Thank you so much. You're welcome. You. No.

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: That's my experience with the

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I appreciate that.

[Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Retired Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court]: Thank you.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Anything else?

[Christina E. Nolan, Supreme Court Nominee]: I'm really done this time.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: No problem. All right. We are all set. All right. We are adjourned. Thank you.

[Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Retired Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court]: Thank you.