Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: We are live.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Alright. We are back in the Senate tradition area. It's January 29. We are going to have the discussions and votes of both Christina Nolan and Michael Dresser for appointments to the Supreme Court. They feel that we can start with Ms. Nolan. We can have a discussion and and presumably entertain a motion one way or the other. So is there anybody who wishes to start this

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: conversation? I'll start at the second place.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I think, in listening to Ms. Nolan, throughout a couple of weeks now, along with her resume and so on

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: and so forth, I don't want to get a pretty good sense of exemplary resume,

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: and I'd like her responses to the questions that were asked of her. I know there's been a lot of well received a lot of text and emails, so on and so forth, which way we should go on. On what we're talking about, so presently and I'm comfortable with it. I realized there wasn't an incident that she has explained herself to us in the courthouse and so on

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: and so forth. But I I feel comfortable pushing her to the. Senator, just to make up on the courthouse incident, I was initially concerned about that. That is the firearm in in her bag. I thought she answered it very well. She acknowledged that she had made a mistake. She took the compassion to educate herself about the issue and went through a pre charge program. And all of that suggested to me that she was giving it the appropriate weight and was not above saying that she had made a mistake and was walking against it. So I I was yeah. That's fine on that count.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Yeah. I think, one of the things that really caught my interest going through the toll process was the fact that, yes, she was a federal prosecutor, but in her previous professional career and also now, being a defense attorney, so having both sides of the table, if you will, it really struck me that she can understand from a use of exit point of view what both sides are going through. So I'm happy to learn that and happy to support her going forward.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Patty had really significant concerns coming into this hearing, and I, you know, came into it, like said, with pretty significant concern facing things that the nominee had said publicly during campaigns and publicly while she was the US attorney. Throughout the course of the hearings, I felt the nominee answered those concerns in a way that was deeply committed to the constitution, deeply committed to upholding the rights of Vermonters, and deeply committed to, and I will use her word, being a whole work against the threats to civil rights and due process and just our rights generally that are coming from the federal government. I believe very strongly that people grow, they change, people grow. And the nominee's willingness to admit to that growth, that change, spaces where she felt she had made the wrong decision, has left me in a place where I feel confident that she is committed to upholding the rights of Vermonters, regardless of what her personal views may be. And that she's committed to continuing to keep an open mind, to grow, to gauge, and to really learn from the people of Vermont. And so, with that, I I do feel that I can vote for support to its nominee and that that her testimony and, frankly, some of the things we got from people she had been a prosecutor to, against, I don't really know what the right word is there, in support of her, really, really shine a light on her openness and willingness to really look at things and examine her own bias and where her views came from. And so with that, I will be supporting this nominee, and I really wanna thank her for coming in and changing my mind.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, I don't want to belabor the points that have already been raised. I agree with everything that's been discussed. I do find it to be a well qualified candidate with a breadth of experience. I know there is concern about the fact that she was a prosecutor, sure, in more casual settings, I love getting prosecutors part of time, but you know, on a more serious note, prosecutors do make great attorneys, but they're regularly in the courts, and they're regularly dealing with fundamental rights related to liberty. And as Senator Mattos mentioned, she she was a defender prior, and she's now a defender as well. So that's that's good for us to experience. Regarding the gun issue, that was initially a red flag for me in terms of judgment, really. It was a mistake, and it was worrisome. I think, though, that her testimony and the voluntary actions that she took afterwards, like going to the firearm safety class, I think that speaks to her integrity to be accountable for a mistake and not make that mistake in the future. So I'll be voting yes. Leave it at that. So I would entertain a vote to vote her out there.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I will direct them

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: all to the results because we

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: don't know what this is.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: A second.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I'm a second.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: Senator Norris? Yes. Senator Baruth? Yes. Senator Matos? Yes. Senator Vyhovsky? Yes. Senator Hashim? Yes. Five-zero-zero.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So, some additional steps we have to take after that is just the evidence. Bring that up to the clerk's office. So that brings us to confirmation of the Franklin Dressford. Is there anybody that would like me to start this discussion?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: I'll start the discussion again, because I was. This

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: one is not quite easy for me. It's but I haven't run from around me for a while. But I guess from numerous or hundreds of emails we've all received in our list of nominees, I guess I would ask that it's been a training to explain that process of which Mr. Drescher wasn't prosecuted terms of a comfort intention. Explain that to

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: the viewing audience that what the process actually was at some place. Yes. I'll do my best, keeping in mind for the audience that don't practice in federal court and regarding this process. You know, this was something that I had to learn a lot about as well. I had some misunderstandings several weeks ago when I first broke this issue. Since then, I've read the federal pleadings, spoke with other attorneys to get, to try to get a better understanding as we approach this decision point. But to your question, yes, there is a, what I think the misunderstanding that Mr. Dredcher was, quote, prosecuting Ramesa Oster and Moshe Medowic. I think that the easiest way to look at it is that anything involving the commencement of the immigration proceedings, put that over here under the umbrella of Marco Rubio, let's say. And so that's the immigration proceedings. However, whenever somebody, whenever anybody is detained, they have a right to make the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and is, what that means is essentially challenging why you're being detained. And there is the petitioner and then the respondent. Mr. Dredger's role was a defensive one because the petitioners, MOSA and Vimesa, they filed their motion, their writs of previous ordinance, and it was Mr. Dredger's responsibility to respond to those briefs. And so that was his role in this, to the best of my understanding.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: And also that explanation helps start with people watching, and because of that I feel, in my mind, if we just took those two individuals out of the picture and looked at Mr. Dressner and resume and his experience of dedication, and keeping in mind that he was not a political appointee from the current administration. He slid into this position because of where he was within the office. Had a second insurance, he slid into that position. He had several officers that were available to him. He explained those officers to us, but he felt when it came down to it that if he simply resigned and walked away, that the current administration would put one of their appointees in there and just go the direction he necessarily want, because these kicks in. Also take a testimony from, ironically, one of the attorneys who was the partner of the individual who actually was defending,

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Moses.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: When asked if he was afforded due process after, he said, Yes, he was. When asked if he did anything that was unacceptable, he said, No, he did not. And he says basically what he said was it took courage to do what he had to do. So because of that, I've been rushing back and forth with it, but I feel comfortable with this

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: as to where he was with pressure.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: If I can briefly interject, just clarify, I believe what mister Baruth you're referring to mister Baruth. Believe it wasn't unacceptable. It was that he said that mister Gretzer did not do anything. That's what I remember. Yes. And again, this is for the best of my memory. I believe the Martin's primary concern was the courage to do something different, and believe that the judgement said the judgement should have had the coverage. That is to the best of my memory. If anybody remembers it differently, please correct the record. Was a recall from

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: just add that Gerald Martin did follow-up with an email to clarify some of his complaints around whether or not Moissan was offered due process. I believe when he testified in committees, alluded to the fact that he felt Mr. Tractor brought due process, and in his follow-up email clarified that he meant that he did eventually get to process, that it

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: was not in his structures that you're waiting. Further discussion? Anybody wants yeah, I, so it's a little bit different for me. I, you know, I don't come from a judicial background. So the process has been pretty eye opening because a lot of the responses that I've been getting in emails and whatnot, I had the same thoughts at the beginning of this whole process about the cases that Mr.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Drescher was involved in, and learning more about the process about how applicants go forth to the judicial nominating board. The nominating board will interview all the applicants, and then after that take a vote and send those to the governor, for the governor to choose his appointees in this case. So I've been going through a process, and now it ends up in our committee here in judiciary, we get to hear personally from the nomination, in this case, Mr. Drescher. So it's been eye opening for me to actually learn about the immigration law and how that works and what Mr. Chair spoke about before about the process that could be used for this, how that works, and what Mr. Drescher's role was in those cases. It's been very enlightening and made me feel comfortable being able to support Mr. Drescher in his appointment because I think the body of work that he's done being in the US Attorney's Office for the past twenty years, working through many different administrations, never being politically appointed. Like Senator Norris said, it's by statute that he went from number two to number one. I feel confident in the work that he's done in his current position, his previous professional life, that he'll be able to be an excellent Supreme Court Justice. And concerns that I hear about the two cases, mostly learning the intricacies of those cases and what his role was, makes me feel even better about what his positions were. And I know Mr. Martin clarified his comments afterwards, but it sounds to me, based on what Mr. Martin said and what Mr. Dresher said, is that when he got involved, that there was the due process supported, whether it was with the courts and what Mr. Dresher did. I feel confident that he didn't be in this role and provide an admirable service and save the money. Thank you. Anybody else?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Certainly. Yeah, certainly. So I also learned a lot about what the role is of the U. Attorney in a haemas position. And to the Chair's point, one of my concerns is the limited state court experience. To your point, they're quite different. What happens in federal court and what happens in state court to the extent that our attorney chair didn't really understand that process. And so that is one of my points of concern. I also am deeply concerned with these two cases, notwithstanding the lack of insight in attending a press conference and praising this administration. And while I recognize the case that was being highlighted was the incredibly important case to prosecute, The fact that the nominee had no insight into how this administration is using cases like that to broad brushing all immigrants as hooey traffickers and criminals and to justify their actions is deeply concerning to me. And there's no ethical or legal requirement for a US attorney to attend press conferences. I also am concerned with the manner in which the incredible amount of public concern was dismissed as simply not knowing the process and not really understanding. While I understand that's true, I think that public opinion and the public view of trust in our courts is, at this point in time, more important than ever. And whether they understand the process or not, they are the people that have to trust our courts, will stand up for their rights. And what I've heard loud and clear is they cannot. And I am deeply at this point, I think Supreme Court justices should always be taken very seriously. But at this point in time, with assaults on our rights across the board, I think it's even more important than ever that we have someone who is courageous and has the insight to understand the impact of their actions broadly. And, you know, this decision will impact jurisprudence in Vermont, and in many instances nationally, for generations to come. Vermont has a long history, as has been pointed out, setting residents, whether it be with the partial abolition of slavery or whether it be the rights of same sex couples, we have a pretty long history of really setting forward what happens nationally. And I'm not convinced that this nominee is the right person at this time to gain public trust, to have the insight to truly stand up in opposition to what we're facing. And for those reasons, I cannot support the nomination.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Quick response to the state court experience piece. I did raise that as a concern. And again, I don't practice in federal courts, so whether this is an area I had to revisit and relearn, but Mr. Dredford did provide a letter dated January 27. And he does go into more detail about his state court experience and how there are, how state law can be litigated in federal court, even though it uses federal procedure, rules of civil procedure, rules of evidence. And so it's just some information I wanted to put out there

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: regarding this.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I don't know that I've seen that.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: Yeah. There's there's there's one there. Yeah. I got it. This one.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It's it should be on

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: the. Yeah. So that I'll take a look. I just when when, you know, I think I've, you know, gotten down the three trials that they gave us, he just doesn't seem good enough. But I will also do this.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: Yeah. And if I may add, would also say, you know, through this whole process of learning, the Supreme Court is also very different than the state court. Vermont's very important. It's very different than the city court. So having been in federal boards and some state experience, all leading to being a Supreme Court, and should acknowledge that the Supreme Court is also different than the Supreme Court.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yes. And what I would add to that is, you know, in in state court, you are dealing with state law and state constitution and questions or conflicts of state law in the state constitution with the Vermont Supreme Court. There are circumstances where a state supreme court decision can be appealed to the federal to the US Supreme Court if there is also involvement of federal statute or US constitution. But I well, again, I'll just be.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: And, Ruth, in advance. Well, like senator Norris, I I have wrestled a lot with this and lost a lot of sympathy. I think both nominees are good people. They came in and they were intelligent and personable. And and I hope nothing that I say will be taken as disparagement of mister Drescher because I thought he in very credible testimony, was not ultimately enough for me to do. And for me, it comes down to the Mosin Medalli case, which had a particular, perhaps personal impact on me. And what I come back to again and again is what Mr. Gresher said was that it was very rare, I think he said extremely rare, for he was acting US Attorney, but for the head of that office to take on the Nader case was extremely rare. And his rationale was that he was protecting his subordinates in Soviet Union. And in the senate, we don't get into the tensions, and so I I don't disagree what she says about some. But what I would say is that what bothered me more than anything in this moment in time is that I feel that we have a regime in Washington that is openly corrupt and dangerous. And it's a difference in magnitude from the first Trump administration. And there is a logic that says better that I should be in this job than that I needed to be, and then someone worse. And I feel like during the first Trump administration, many people maintained that and they stayed in their positions. And they contributed to actions that I wouldn't agree with. Again, I think this is a quantum leap forward that we're seeing now in terms of danger to the republic itself. And so I feel like people who supported mister Drescher were in essence saying, we understand that you feel you need to draw the lines, but we should draw it after mister Drescher. And I just don't feel that I could do that. I I feel that the system that arrested mister Nader had been hastily put together. It was, in my mind, unconstitutional. It was directed at searing him out of the country to somewhere where he'd be able to defend himself. And it was only very quick thinking that captain was here. Now supporters of North Depression would say that he had no option in that case, but to defend the government, to defend this system that was being put into place to circumvent well understood bigger rights. I just, I have tried and tried to see it that way and ultimately, I can't make my conscience go along. So, I would say, reluctantly, I voted out against this depression because the time to draw the line has come, and I can't make myself drawn after him. It has to be valid if it's gonna be drawn at all. Thank you.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. Wait. Like everybody, this has been one that has been well, I'm I'm not exaggerating what I said. I think this has been the hardest decision I've had to make since being here. It's been essentially two different schools of thought potting up against each other since this issue, since this confirmation process started. And after learning a lot more, well, I'll say this, the very beginning, when actually both of these nominees were coming to this committee, I I could see essentially see a freight train on its way to the committee and we all jumped on that train as we stated this process patiently and due diligence. But since we've started the process, I've learned a lot more. I was initially far more concerned than I am now, though I do still hold substantial hesitations. And that's why we have these here. That's why we get testimony, written in live testimony, and that's why we do our research to to learn more about this and make informed decisions. And where the conflicts for me arises is now as I'm that I understand what the director's position would Where am I an attorney at? I can understand why he was making those arguments and what those arguments meant in the context of that process as best as I can. And where that butts up though is with my role as a senator and hearing from not just hundreds of Vermonters across the state about their fear and anger towards the issues that were seen today but you know, specifically from my desperate dozens upon dozens of Windham County voters and residents and attorneys I've worked with and have known for fifteen years, people who have really shaped the way that that I people who have shaped my current perspective and respect the judiciary and also including two retired judges from participants and I know that Mr. Drescher and folks who supporting Mr. Drescher obviously disagree with those perspectives. I appreciate their concerns, but I guess the question becomes, at what point are my constituents right regardless of what I have learned or how I feel regarding specific procedural issues and questions of law that arose recent incidents. And in this moment, I'm wearing my Senate hat and I have to vote in such a way that that I think my constituents suspected of. And so that is to say that I I will be voting no. It's been very difficult to get here and I I have no doubts that mister Drescher is has has integrity. He's very intelligent, and we didn't hear from a lot of his co workers, former co workers, about how great a colleague is. But I still have to look at, as you said, the first you mentioned, this moment in history, and what voters are, what constituents or lawmakers are expecting from their elected officials. And I and I think that trust is I want people to be able to trust government and I want them to be able to trust whether it's the judiciary, executive, or legislative branch. I want them to be able to trust that their elected officials will make the decisions that they expect them to be, especially when there is a chorus expecting them, or demanding that they go a certain way, and especially given the context and the circumstance that we find ourselves in this country. So I'll spare you any further philosophizing, I'll say before, but that's all to say that I'll be voting on. So I would entertain a motion, though I'm not quite sure at this moment what motion we offer to.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: I'll offer a look at what might happen. So I I am first of all, I commend you, the chair, for the way the Burmese hearings. I think it's been fair, careful, judicious. You have taken in all of the testimony, and I would extend that to my colleagues. I think everybody has done a lot of work, but also done that work in the problem. If we vote, and it seems now that the vote would fail to move Mr. Dresser forward with a positive recommendation, I believe that we should start with a motion to move the nomination favorably. So someone who is going to vote that way, I would hope, make that motion. If that fails and the vote is against the nominee, I would then move that we send the nomination to the floor because I think this is far too important to have one committee have the final word, so I think it needs to go to the full Senate. I would make that motion in a particular way. I would not ask that it be here with a negative recommendation because as Pro Tem, I've worked with the chairs to try to try to make them understand that bringing things out with a negative recommendation is sometimes a subversion of the contingent system. So I would ask that they

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: come out with no

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: recommendation. If that motion fails, someone could then move to bring it out with negative recommendations. So I can't I can't I I don't wanna make the positive nonfiction, but

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I believe that's where we should start. Sarah, the host, maybe? I'm so sorry. The options the sort of three options are favorable, not favorable, and have no recommendations. Right. And I guess, given the vote, I'm just a little confused why we would not represent that vote accurately on

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: The the votes will be represented accurately, so the chair will explain the vote and make it clear that the nominee will fail to get a majority. But without going into it too much, we've had a few instances where committees have voted bills out with negative recommendations with the idea that once they get to the floor, they're about to to the. I think that weakens the committees in their work. So in part to not contribute to that, I would be moving that this amount of no recommendation. But it would be clear that the committee is not recommending this company and the vote was against

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Okay. So that's helpful, because the way I was sort of viewing the three buckets was as positive, neutral, and negative, and I don't believe.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: No, I view it as no recommendation. So, in other words, the vote is speaking for itself.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Okay. I recognize this is not a common occurrence, so I was kind of processing it through my brain to sort of challenge myself out of the positive, neutral, or negative

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: So again, think it's standard of practice to begin with, does somebody want to move the nomination to failure?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I'll make that motion.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: Any

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: further discussion? I also think we call the roll on that one.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: And I do think we should call the roll one on all of these issues. Some step or piece, and then

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Maybe we'll that's printing if you wanna Yeah. I'll do that. I'll do that.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: Thank you, John. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Alright. So where we're at, voting to confirm favorably Supreme Court Justice nominee. Mr. Dragons. Senator Norris? Yes. Senator Baruth? No. Senator Mattos? Yes. Senator Vyhovsky?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: No.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: Senator Hashim? No. That is a two-three-zero favorable vote.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So I'm thankful. I'm so confused. I'm sorry. Well, Sorry. It so my understanding is when it since we just had a motion for a positive recommendation to put the vote on that, The majority was that he not look forward to a positive recommendation, and that leaves it in limbo, essentially, with that motion. Okay. And so it can't go my understanding is it can't go to the floor with a two three vote of a positive. I

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: think if we were to do nothing now, it would die

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: in the end.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: Correct? So as as I described a minute ago, my motion is that understanding that there was a a failed vote to move the nomination paper, I do think it should go to the full senate. So I would agree that the nomination should go to the forum of no right. Okay.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So my initial response and hesitation, sending something out with no recommendation. I understand your position. I I respect your position as the pro tem and the the precedent that you're trying to establish or that you're trying to avoid. The chair, I hold the concern mainly because I feel that the Senate as a body expects us to come out with a suggestion one way or the other, and considering the amount of time, testimony, work that you've done all this, it would feel strange to me that at this point we're not, we can't represent to the Senate yes or no as a committee. That's a challenge for me at

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: the moment, so I'm not quite sure. If I might, I think, as chair, you will summarize the committee's discussion and a vote, and so it will be clear that the majority of the committee voted against this congressional. It's So a procedural nuance whether it comes out with a negative rejection or a negative recommendation or a recommendation. I I think it's from my point of view, it's a distinction worth making in this case. So I will just say I've made that motion. Should it fail, someone is free to make another motion for whatever reason they like.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: You mentioned the distinction in this case. What did

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: you mean? Well, in other words, think, as you said, it seems important to have a not only have a negative vote, but send a negative recommendation. And think that the Senate will take direction from us to a certain extent with our negative vote, and people will make up their own minds about the issue. So I don't think there'd be a material difference whether it's no regularization.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I don't know.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: So I think the chair did a better job sort of expressing my concern, and I wonder if I might ask for maybe a seven minute break so that I might have a brief conversation with our parliamentarian to understand procedural nuance.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: I think we should exhibit that now that I know we haven't like to start and we never want to get out What, can you care

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: what your questions are so can we perhaps

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I don't know that I, I don't know that, I'm trying to understand the procedural nuance and I don't, and I don't feel comfortable taking a vote that I don't fully understand. That does not make me comfortable. Because I share your concern that issuing no recommendation is neutrality, and neutrality is never what we do when we're faced with hard stuff. But I hear you saying that it's a procedural nuance that I imagine our parliamentarians might be able to help me understand. But if I am forced to take a vote that I don't understand, I will vote no. I'm

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: going to ask, wanna make sure that the committee has an opportunity to chime in on how they feel about this, and I think there's merit on both sides of the, our agent feels that there's

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: a motion on the table, it's not going to go to order to them. Take a break. Take a break with you. May need

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Can the motion be withdrawn?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: I would prefer not to withdraw And if someone feels they need to vote no, then that is certainly an option. Senator Norris has said that. What are your thoughts?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I abstain where Senator puts it coming from, and I vote second in motion.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: Yeah, I under- I understand what, Senator Baruth has- has put forward for a motion mirror and, you know, not setting the precedent to continually bring out votes and things like that. The chair will do on the floor, I'd imagine, has made that be known and it's public knowledge for what the vote is. So giving the opportunity to pull Sen for the confirmation. And and I would say there will be no misunderstanding after this hearing that we have voted mister Drescher down during this meeting.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, sounds as if there are at least three guest votes regardless for sending the pressure out with no revenue, should be that's the

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: most that we have on the table.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: Just contemplating it, but we have just a brief pause. So

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: alright. Well, that's the motion that we have. It is it will remain my opinion that generally a committee should provide a yes or no vote, or a yes or no recommendation to the Senate, But I understand the situation that we're in, and this is a unique one. Yeah. That's So that's my position. Be voting no on the recommendation, but I I understand we have three yes votes in support. So unless is there further discussion?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: Okay. Senator North? Yes. Senator Baruth? Yes. Senator Mattos? Yes. Senator Vyhovsky? No. Senator Vashim? No. Three two zero. Favorable. So both nominations would go to the floor. So once with positive reputation and they were reported on both. And in this case, they were reported on those and no recognition. So

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I guess then the next question becomes I mean, I had anticipated reporting out both of these nominees. I will port out this to Nolan. So that kind of but so I guess that frees the question that of who wants to report out that, perhaps, my understanding is correct me if I'm wrong. We have this realization that voting no. We vote no on the recommendation. The person voting no isn't able to report. Is that correct?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: I I think the chair can always be because you're being asked in this situation to summarize the work. But if if you choose not to and you wanna delegate that to somebody else, then there were two people involved in favor of it or of the. I would

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: prefer reporting yeah. It would it would be my preference, to report Mr. Dredcher. My intention for both of these folks was to provide an unbiased and objective summary of their resumes and the answers provided in Hess County to supplement their experiences. And then following that presentation, said whatever the committee's decision was, that we are providing no recommendations. Well, me ask this. Is there anybody with a burning desire to report out Mr. Gresh right now? Happy to do it, and I'll provide, like I mentioned, objective report of his resume and experiences, followed by a persuasive argument that you don't have a recommendation, but in trying to explain why there is

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: no recommendation. That's what I

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: can't I did not anticipate. That's what I would be presenting.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: I think you can confine yourselves in the vote if that's the important thing. So now that is the first vote of the business was to vote to confirm anything else.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So I'll, I'll, I'll report it

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: out and just, I'll figure it out. It's in the hostel.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Kind of a question, kind of the same way. Generally speaking, and I mean, this is a weird situation because we're not having a recommendation, but generally speaking, chairs usually report out in secretaries and those high level positions. So it makes sense to me for you to do Supreme Court Justices. I also would imagine that in any given report, again, this is a strange space to be in, what the reporter is doing is representing a position of the committee, and letting DIPO know that was the position

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: of the committee. Mhmm. I it's yeah. Okay. I think so. Thank you. Of course.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: All right. So any further discussion or thoughts, if it's something to add?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: All right. I will just repeat, and I will say this on the floor. I think maybe doing amazing work, and you were directing that work. You can remember from Zoe Saunders' confirmations, very easy for things to slip into, to have an error be compounded and then have recriminations of the whole process. And I think we've avoided that. It will

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: go to the door in a

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member; Senate President Pro Tempore)]: very smooth way, and we'll have what I think will be a civil discussion on the floor, people will vote their conscience. And that's especially important because this is 40% of the Supreme Court, we're talking about it. Again, like to thank for that one.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thanks, Vicki. And I appreciate everybody's patience and due diligence and very good questions that everybody asked. Also

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: a

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: big thank you to Remmery and initially Lynn had two committee assistants with us. I'm bombarded with emails for testimony to be both in. So grateful for that. Okay. So we don't have any further business. We can we can appear on. We can take those reports up to the secretary and get them on the calendar. The board vote will be on between the Senate. I understand.