By Catherine Mortensen

After Joe Biden and Kamala Harris dodged debate questions about “packing the courts,”  Biden, when pressed further finally said, “You’ll know my opinion on court packing when the election is over.”

Biden is playing games with the American people on what could be the most consequential issue of the election and here is why this matters.

Presidents are constitutionally bound to fill vacancies on the courts including the Supreme Court which has been set to nine justices since 1869. It is expected that they will nominate judges who share their views on the constitution. Naturally, these presidential appointments can have far-reaching impacts on the nation.

What is not normal, expected, or natural is to “pack the court.” Packing the court is a different thing altogether. It is when a president attempts to increase the number of judges on any given court in order to get a desired political outcome.

“Packing the court” was coined by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and was a slang term for the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937.

Roosevelt sought to reform the number of Supreme Court justices in an effort to obtain a favorable ruling for the New Deal legislation.

The central provision of the bill would have granted the president power to appoint an additional justice to the Supreme Court – up to a maximum of six – for every member of the court over the age of 70 years and six months.

Roosevelt’s bill went nowhere. The public and Congress rejected it, seeing it for what it was, a power grab. No president has ever tried it since. At least not with the Supreme Court.

However, during the Obama-Biden Administration, Senate Republicans accused the White House and Senate Democrats of trying to pack the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This court is often referred to as the second highest court in the land because it hears important cases concerning the federal government.

In 2013, The 11-panel court had three vacancies which Obama sought to fill. But Republicans pointed out that the court did not handle enough cases to warrant 11 judges and sought to reduce the number to 9.

Republican leaders tried to make the case that “the most underworked appeals court in the country should not be manipulated by the president and his political allies to advance their agenda.”

According to an October 2013 Senate Republican Policy Committee memo, an unnamed D.C. Circuit Court Judge said, “I do not believe the current caseload of the D.C. Circuit or, for that matter, the anticipated caseload in the near future, merits additional judgeships at this time. … If any more judges were added now, there wouldn’t be enough work to go around.”

That same memo noted, “Senate Democrats and their allies have been quite clear: they are pushing to make more appointments to the D.C. Circuit — not because they are needed, but because they want judges who will rubber-stamp the President’s agenda.”

Ultimately, the Obama-Biden Administration succeeded in appointing four judges to that court in which Democrats now hold sway.

This matters because the D.C. Circuit has sole responsibility for deciding cases having to do with the balance of powers of the branches of government and decisions made by government agencies affecting issues such as health care, national security, and energy development.

“In 2013, when Obama attempted to pack that court, his administration had a problem,” explained Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government. “There were a number of disputes involving the power of the executive branch that were headed to the federal district court of appeals, and that court was philosophically evenly divided. Fearing that the courts would curtail their power, the Obama-Biden team schemed to add three left leaning judges to the district court of appeals. They sought to guarantee that the executive branch would win all legal challenges.”

The fact that Biden has been involved in what looks like court packing in the past, should concern every American.  If he is allowed back into the White House, and his party gains control of the Senate, he could very likely abolish the filibuster in order to push through a Roosevelt-type scheme to politicize and pack  the Supreme Court.

Catherine Mortensen is the Vice President of Communications at Americans for Limited Government.  You can read more of her articles at www.DailyTorch.com. 

By Catherine Mortensen

This morning, my son, a high school senior doing virtual learning, texted me, “I didn’t get out of bed for first period.” I replied, “Yikes!” To which he shot back, “It’s okay, I just did the class from bed.”

This cannot be a thing! Kids should not be going to school from their beds!

A few hours later, a friend on Facebook posted: “I’m totally winning at this parenting thing! I slept through my alarm and logged onto my son’s calendar time right as they were saying goodbye to everybody. So, he got marked tardy for today. And then I was trying to help my daughter with her math, but I don’t know the current math jargon, so I wasn’t able to explain it without making her cry. It’s only 11:00 am. This is going to be a stellar day.”

Another girlfriend posted in a Facebook group dedicated to reopening schools: “I went in to check on my 9th grader because she was yelling at her class – well it was at her computer. She was in tears telling me she was going to have to drop out or fail because there are too many tabs, and too much technology, and she doesn’t understand where she is supposed to find all her work. She said she asked for help but got kicked out of the group and couldn’t get back on and when she tried to talk to the teacher, they couldn’t hear her. ‘I can’t turn it in because I can’t find it. I can’t understand it when I do find it. Why can’t they just give me a sheet of work to do, I can do that, but I can’t do this computer stuff. It’s going to kill me.’ And I’ve been in tears since.”

Another friend, a therapist who works with youth, said all of her patient visits are done remotely and many of the young people she visits with online are home alone. “Yesterday I spoke to a 12-year old patient who is home with three younger siblings,” she said.

Whether parents are home, at work, or working from home, virtual learning is not working for anyone.

A parent at the office cannot fully focus on their job because they are worried about their child at home. Similarly, it is difficult for a parent to productively work from home if they have children who need help.

In the short term the schools closures and larger economic shut down resulted in a 37 percent drop in non-farm worker output from May to July and nation’s economy contracting by 31.7 percent in the second quarter.

With the economy now on the rebound, those losses appear to be temporary, however, scholars from The Brookings Institution looked into the long-term consequences of virtual learning and it’s not good.  From the COVID-19 cost of school closures report finding “lost earnings of $1,337 per year per student: a present value loss of earnings of $33,464 (63 percent of a year’s salary at current average wage rates)… [and] a look at the impact on the whole of the country is much more sobering. In this model, the cost to the United States in future earnings of four months of lost education is $2.5 trillion—12.7 percent of annual GDP… Extrapolating to the global level, on the basis that the U.S. economy represents about one-quarter of global output, these data suggest the world could lose as much as $10 trillion over the coming generation as a result of school closures today.”

The human and economic costs of virtual learning are real. Our kids are losing years right now. By ignoring them we are placing our future in peril — and the cost may be more than we can bear.

Catherine Mortensen is the Vice President of Communications at Americans for Limited Government.  You can read more of her articles at www.DailyTorch.com. 

By DANIEL SONNINSHINE

By DANIEL SONNINSHINE,

In the midst of multitudes of hysterical people – some states with more, some states with less – comes a holiday movie that creates just a bit more hysteria. This hysteria, though, is through the pen and lens of a versatile, if not highly-talented, thespian turned writer/director—in the form of the very welcomed comedic feature film Friendsgiving. Due to be released on October 23, Friendsgiving is a holiday flick starring some Hollywood favorite ladies including Malin Akerman, Jane Seymour, and Kat Dennings; one of its producers is Ben Stiller. The mastermind (i.e., the aforementioned writer/director) of this frenetic, very funny upcoming cinematic offering is Nicol Paone, a born and bred Lyndhurst, New Jersey woman.

A 1989 graduate of the now-closed Queen of Peace High School in North Arlington, a small middle-class municipality just one locale south of her hometown, Paone actually is much more than a thespian turned writer/director. At Queen of Peace, she was a superstar athlete, serving as one of the Garden State’s best soccer and softball players. She also successfully played the latter sport all four of her collegiate years. And if that wasn’t enough, Paone earned her way to an alternate spot on the U.S. Olympic handball team.

After her university graduation, she quickly moved from the sports world to the film and television industry. Paone acted in sizable roles in multiple independent films, including Pride & Loyalty (a crime thriller that stars multiple Academy Award and Emmy winners and nominees) and Rules For Men (a wild comedy starring nearly every major player from “The Howard Stern Show” and other iconic comedians). Although Paone helped adapt Pride & Loyalty from its best-selling suspense novel to its screenplay, her career turned more in the direction of the other referenced film; meaning, she went more toward comedy.

The former standout athlete hustled her way to a network series regular role. For several seasons, Paone stood out as one of the primary actors on Logo’s “The Big Gay Sketch Show.” During that stint, a time period from 2006 – 2010, Paone also served as a producer for several of the show’s episodes. Her television work also includes appearances on varied series, including “Trophy Wife”, “30 Rock”, “Throwing Shade”, and “The Adventures of Delores Briggam.”

Turning back to film, Paone nabbed her biggest break in having one of her own screenplays – Friendsgiving – selected to be produced into a sizable Hollywood-style motion picture. If that wasn’t enough, she was afforded the opportunity to direct the movie and the star-studded cast assembled by its producers, who include Haroon Saleem and Nicholas Weinstock in addition to Stiller and actress Akerman.

The IMDB synopsis of the film provides:

“Molly and Abbey, along with their crew of close friends and acquaintances, host a dysfunctional, comical and chaotic Thanksgiving dinner.”

That summary, however, doesn’t adequately address the obvious hilarity of the movie, which can be notably seen in the movie’s trailer.

With crisp cinematography, quick-moving editing, all-around dynamic acting from some very funny people – not to mention witty, smart writing and edgy helming with the right comedic timing from Paone – Friendsgiving appears, from its trailer, to have all the stuffing and trimmings necessary for an outstanding holiday treat. This, surely, is something needed in today’s hysterical environment; it’s just a different, better kind of “hysterical.”

All said, the superstar athlete from Lyndhurst, NJ may now be becoming a superstar filmmaker in Los Angels, CA. At minimum, she’s done something that the vast majority of writers/directors/actors will never do: she’s made a fine movie with some great talent.

Daniel Sonninshine is an Empire State News staff writer, who is in search of greatness. A 20-something smart fellow, he is now lifting weights in an effort to obtain more power. If that doesn’t work, he will ask to write more editorials for Empire State News and less fact articles. He also dabbles in film reviews. Favorite flicks include The Godfather, Blazing Saddles, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, It’s a Wonderful Life, and The Passion of the Christ.

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

By TEMPLE LI

As many states’ governors have turned the 10th amendment on its head, asserting states rights in an undeniably reckless manner, in handing down stay at home and other liberty-limiting orders in the Covid-19 crisis, it is a good time to evaluate the usual issues that arise via the use/misuse of this often forgotten constitutional provision. Although in today’s strange world liberals are invoking the 10th Amendment’s tenets (ordinarily, they are all for an expansive federal government and attempt to shirk valid 10th Amendment arguments), conservatives have been the longstanding proponents of states’ rights.

There is a 13-letter Latin motto, used on the Great Seal of the U.S., representing the 13 original states uniting under one government—“out of many, one.” It is instructive

Fast forward to 2020, 50 states and the District of Columbia in chaos and crisis, hardly united under a corrupt political system of politicians, many of whom have remained in the government far too long for the purpose of personal profit, financial gain and power grabs.  Fifty states are at lager heads with the government and among themselves on major issues which affect the moral fiber of our country, failing to find common ground and reach any consensus.   This is clearly demonstrated by looking at the wide divide when it comes to policies on marijuana, sanctuary cities and abortion.

The country is currently facing a major opioid epidemic, which has grown over the last 20 years since “pain” became the 5^th vital sign.  Proponents of medical marijuana usage would have you believe that is a substitute for opioids in relieving pain.  According to the Missouri State Medical Association in their May-June, 2018 Journal of Missouri Medicine, marijuana is a companion drug to opioids and does not result in the decrease of opioid usage.  In 2017, Colorado reported a record number of deaths from opioids, including heroin; yet they have had a medical marijuana program in place since 2001. The current body of evidence supporting cannabis as a treatment for pain is based on 28 studies comprised of 68 reports and 2,554 patients.  Contradictory evidence based on the study of 33,000 people demonstrates that cannabis contributes to opioid overdosing.

Regardless of your belief as to marijuana medicinal attributes, it is abundantly clear that both the medical and recreational use of marijuana have substantially increased the coffers of those states where it is legalized.  In California, with a state tax of 15% on marijuana as both a recreational and medical drug, the state boasts $2.75 billion in sales.  Given that kind of revenue it is understandable that state legislatures would turn a blind eye to any body of evidence which support the negative results of marijuana usage. Despite many states’ acceptance of cannabis for medical use and others for recreational use as well, under federal law, it is still illegal and treated as any other controlled substance, including heroin and cocaine.   According to a map developed by DISA Global studies, twelve states currently have laws making marijuana illegal; 28 states have legalized marijuana for medical use and 13 of these states have reduced penalties related to its recreational use, while 11 states have fully legalized cannabis both for recreational and medical use.

What about “sanctuary” cities?  Those cities, counties and states which have polices and laws preventing local and state law enforcement agencies from cooperating with Federal agents related to the harboring of illegal immigrants are considered as “sanctuaries” for these aliens.  This then makes it more difficult for the Federal government to enforce immigration laws; often results in harm caused to American citizens and encourages the continued influx of illegal immigrants into the U.S.  According to CNN Politics, 6/14/2018, currently, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee have banned sanctuary cities, while California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington are pro sanctuary states.

Finally, abortion, which through Roe vs Wade, a legal decision made in 1973 by the United States Supreme Court striking down a Texas law banning abortion, made this procedure legal in the United States  and protected under Federal law.  However, according to a Marist Poll taken in mid-February, 2019, equal numbers of those polled—47% each– were pro-life or supported abortion.  This was a dramatic difference from the same poll done in early January which showed 55% were pro-abortion and 38% pro-life.  According to Barbara Carvalho, poll director, in media release from the Knight of Columbus, the poll sponsor, “current proposals that promote late-term abortion have reset the landscape and language on abortion in a pronounced, and very measurable, way,” Additionally, the poll reported “that among Democrats, the gap between people who identify as pro-life and those who support abortion was cut in half from 55 percent to 27 percent. The number of Democrats who identify as pro-life stood at 34 percent, up from 20 percent in January. Similarly the number of Democrats who said they support abortion fell to 61 percent from 75 percent.”  According to NPR, nine states have passed laws to outlaw abortion—Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, Utah, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia—while nine state have passed laws with no limits on abortion– Illinois, Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont, along with D.C.

E Pluribus Unum?  Hardly!

Temple Li is the news editor for Empire State News, where she frequently authors her own editorials (just because she feels like it). She graduated at the top of her class at a mediocre college, infuriating her professors with her conservative wit and sultry charm. Empire State News allows Ms. Li to make a living, and to have a platform to tell people what she thinks. What could be better than that?

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.             

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

By CANDY STALLWORTH

Going into Tuesday’s election for Public Defender in Florida’s 7th Judicial Circuit, Anne Marie Gennusa has a commanding lead in the polls over her rivals. In the most recent poll, which was posted on the St. Johns County Chamber of Commerce website, the results were as follows:

Anne Marie Gennusa – 51.20%

Matt Metz – 27.33%

George Burden – 21.47%

The above numbers were for the entire 7th Judicial Circuit. The results for just St. Johns County were nearly identical, with Gennusa netting 49.51% of the votes; Metz obtained only 27.76% of the tally, with Burden getting just 22.73% of the votes.

The poll had a sizable sampling for a contest of this size: 1127 votes were cast in this poll. Thus, this is likely a good indicator that Gennusa will be victorious in the election on Tuesday. Several Facebook posters have noted that they already have cast votes for Gennusa (there has been early voting) and others have stated that they will be voting for her on Tuesday.

If Gennusa wins, she will be the first woman ever elected as public defender in Florida’s 7th Judicial Circuit. She would also be the first-ever St. Johns County resident to win the position.

Empire State News has been following this election, previously reporting the following:

In 1999, Gennusa moved to Florida, where she started a renowned criminal defense/family law practice after a short stint with the state attorney’s office. For the last 20 years, she has been one of the most recognizable legal faces in the courts of Florida’s 7th Judicial Circuit. Unlike her competitors (Burden and Metz), Gennusa brings a wide-ranging legal skill set into this contest. While she has considerable public defender experiences, she is not a career staffer; this is very beneficial in ultimately becoming the leader of a public defender’s office. In having handled thousands of cases in total (and trying hundreds of those cases), she has covered, with superior expertise, a breadth of matters in private criminal and family law matters, as well as being proficient in multiple other practice areas. This has resulted in Gennusa becoming an eminent member of the Florida bar, who is familiar to a large range of lawyers. In being the Public Defender, that leadership position requires much more than just a knowledge of the office. Most career staff workers do not have the requisite legal – and business – range to head such a large office. Gennusa, with both the public defender office and private representation pedigree, over 25 years, is the only candidate in this race with such qualifications.

Candy Stallworth, an Empire State News staff writer, whipped her way through a doctoral education at the finest of American higher ed institutions, noting how unoriginal, inept, and annoying many of the schools’ professors were in their robotic attempts to maintain a politically correct narrative. BTW: she hates words like “narrative”, “optics”, and “gaffe.” Other than that, her turn-offs include non-masculine men, women who hate men, men who hate men, phonies, disloyal people, and overflowing garbage cans. She likes New England clam chowder better than Manhattan clam chowder, but prefers Manhattan to New England.

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

By ROBERT ROMANO

When the national lockdown began about a month ago, with the federal, state and local governments, the military, the private sector and the American people all combining resources to win the war on the Chinese coronavirus, the predictions could not have been more dire.

If nothing was done, more than 2 million Americans, mostly elderly, would die. Without testing, the pandemic would quickly spread beyond control. There were no effective treatments. We would soon run out of hospital beds and ventilators.

Instead, thanks to the effective leadership of President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and the task force, timely action by state governors to close schools and non-essential businesses, private sector mobilization on testing, new treatments and war-time production of needed medical equipment including ventilators, and military coordination to bring in Navy hospital ships, medical supplies and additional medical personnel on the ground locally where the virus was surging, none of that has happened. But can the media admit President Trump did a good job?

To be certain, the toll has already been great, with more than 40,000 who have tragically perished. But not because we ran out of supplies.

As noted by New York Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo on April 6 as New York, the hardest hit state, was approaching its own peak in hospitalizations, “The challenge is to make sure that we don’t lose anyone who could’ve been saved if our healthcare system was operating fully. Don’t lose anyone who you could save. That is a legitimate, ambitious goal of government. And that we have done so far. That we have done so far. Have we saved everyone? No. But have we lost anyone because we didn’t have a bed or we didn’t have a ventilator or we didn’t have healthcare staff? No. The people we lost are the people we couldn’t save.”

Cuomo added on April 19, saying it was the combined efforts of everyone, from federal to the states to the people, that had worked, “What the federal government did working with states… was a phenomenal accomplishment. We bent the curve, we flattened the curve. Government did it, people did it… We had to double the hospital capacity in New York State, that’s what all the experts said. [The] President brought in the Army Corps of Engineers, they built 2,500 beds at Javits… It was a phenomenal accomplishment. Close to a thousand people have gone through Javits. Luckily, we didn’t need the 2,500 beds, but all the projections said we did need it, and more, by the way. So, these were extraordinary efforts and acts of mobilization and the federal government stepped up, and was a great partner, and I’m the first one to say it. We needed help and they were there.”

These two clips were played at the White House coronavirus task force press conference by President Trump on April 19, and you would think, based on the reporter reactions, that the news was not that hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved, directly linked to the unprecedented actions that have been undertaken by President Trump, his team, the military, states, doctors and nurses and the American people, but that President Trump might get his share of the political credit for it in November.

That’s right, the politically motivated Tokyo Rose mainstream media is more concerned about preserving its anti-Trump narrative to help Joe Biden win the election this year than about reporting accurately on all the lives that have been saved. They just want to demoralize people and attempt to control public attitudes towards the President.

The thing is, by contributing to the public panic and mass hysteria surrounding the virus, the media helped to set the national agenda on this issue, and then by pitting it as a choice between the economy or lives, primed the issue and the standards by which the President would be evaluated on it. President Trump chose to save lives every step of the way.

In the meantime, with 22 million jobs already lost on account of all the government-directed closures, perhaps not just the media but the entire country should hope the President at least gets a little credit for these efforts. Next time, the virus might target children instead of the elderly. This has to be economically and politically sustainable, or it will never be attempted again. Something to think about.

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government. You can read more of his articles at www.DailyTorch.com. 

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

By DANIEL SONNINSHINE

Short and to the point.

The government, through numerous state edicts, have obliterated Americans First Amendment rights of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Not being able to move about freely not only sucks, but the current orders that restrict such do not stand constitutional scrutiny. The reasons that state governments have provided for these unprecedented closures have failed from the onset, and monumental evidence has now proven that they are not necessary, not constitutionally lawful, and not wanted by the voters.

Aside from the massive civil rights intrusions, the restrictive orders are, by everyone’s account, destroying the economy. The orders are also causing more health problems and deaths than they are alleged to be preventing.

A few very revealing truths about the coronavirus, which help detail why the state mandated stay at home orders should be lifted, with business and freedoms going back to normal (which is in concert with what most Americans want): 

Fox News Channel host Tucker Carlson lays out the reality regarding the actual death rate of the coronavirus: that it is commiserate with the flu. Here is a clip from a recent show, where he is speaking to a Stanford medical doctor, who explains the evidence:

In a recent segment from Laura Ingraham’s show on Fox News, she speaks with Dr. Phil  McGraw, who explains that the amount of deaths caused by the government stay at home/shutdown orders will significantly supersede the deaths caused by the coronavirus itself. 

Daniel Sonninshine is an Empire State News staff writer, who is in search of greatness. A 20-something smart fellow, he is now lifting weights in an effort to obtain more power. If that doesn’t work, he will ask to write more editorials for Empire State News and less fact articles. He also dabbles in film reviews. Favorite flicks include The Godfather, Blazing Saddles, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, It’s a Wonderful Life, and The Passion of the Christ.

By CANDY STALLWORTH

Has anyone ever hit three grand slams in a single baseball game? How many people have climbed Mount Everest in an hour? Count the number of individuals who have:

Won $10,000,000 in a poker game.

Earned $100,000,000 in a movie where he played the lead role.

Designed the largest three buildings in the world.

Scored 10 touch downs in a football game.

Painted a mile-long bridge in three hours.

Swam across the Atlantic – and back – in less than 24 hours.

Well, Christopher Suprun has one it all. He is a real rock star (he’s sung a few thousand sold-out concerts too).

Candy Stallworth, an Empire State News staff writer, whipped her way through a doctoral education at the finest of American higher ed institutions, noting how unoriginal, inept, and annoying many of the schools’ professors were in their robotic attempts to maintain a politically correct narrative. BTW: she hates words like “narrative”, “optics”, and “gaffe.” Other than that, her turn-offs include non-masculine men, women who hate men, men who hate men, phonies, disloyal people, and overflowing garbage cans. She likes New England clam chowder better than Manhattan clam chowder, but prefers Manhattan to New England.

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

By CANDY STALLWORTH

Not too long ago, Democrats fancied themselves as the protectors of civil liberties. They trumpeted freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. They affirmed that they were leaders in the fortification of the First Amendment. They claimed to fight with rigor against cruel and unusual punishment, citing the power of the Eighth Amendment. They sounded the bells for due process. They argued an American citizen’s rights grounded in the Fifth Amendment: the unconditional right to remain silent and never be compelled to testify in any manner that could incriminate oneself. They asserted that the Fourth Amendment shields against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. They embraced the tenets of the Sixth Amendment, in the sacred democratic-societal right to be represented by counsel. They – they said – were the champions of the criminal defendants.

Yes, Democrats, for so many years, waved – or so it seemed – the flag of the civil libertarians. And wore the cape for those who were in need of criminal defense representation.

Of course, at no time, were Democrats actually any more in favor of  protecting Americans’ constitutional rights than Republicans. Democrats never truly safeguarded civil liberties at any level greater than Republicans. They never, in reality, defended those criminally charged with more fervor than their Republican counterparts. At best, through the history of modern American times, Democrats and Republicans were tied in this regard.

No doubt, however, in today’s world, things have changed. Democrats, in large part (though, in fairness, not all) have shifted to be the hangmen of America. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination process was just an example, albeit a very high-profile one, where Democrats fought – with the greatest of passion – to toss away all constitutional protections in favor of, let’s say, a dictator-type process.

“Innocent until proven guilty” has been abandoned by many in the donkey party. Thrown to the wayside by these blue-bellies, alongside “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Unfortunately, the most precious of fundamental constitutional rights have, in recent years, been banished by many Democrats.

Republicans have now stepped up to be the near-full-force defenders of civil liberties. Republicans have shined, in the most high-profile cases, as the voices for the wrongfully criminally charged. And they have stood out, in the least-known of matters, as the advocates for the improperly accused. Republicans have come forward as the strongest men and women in the criminal defense bar. In private practice, as well as for the indigent.

A candidate for Public Defender in Florida’s 7^th Judicial Circuit is a Republican who embodies, at the highest level, all that is good – and just – in the protection of individuals’ constitutional rights and civil liberties. A woman with 25 years of experience as a criminal defense and family law attorney, St. Augustine lawyer, Anne Marie Gennusa, is the real deal in caring for the rights of defendants who face criminal allegations – as everyone in America shall, indeed, be considered innocent until proven guilty. More so, colleagues describe her as a true, passionate fighter. One who never – ever – gives up. And one who wins, consistently.

In Florida, each judicial circuit has a public defender’s office. Each circuit’s office covers a huge land area and population, quite similar to that of a congressional district. Each office is headed by the “Public Defender.” In Florida’s 7^th Judicial Circuit, the Public Defender oversees almost 90 lawyers. It’s a job that requires top skill both in lawyering and in management. The best candidate is one who dually understands how to succeed in a courtroom and in budgeting a large amount of money.

Taxpayers care about not only shielding those from wrongful prosecutions and convictions, but the same being done by a fiscally responsible leader who doesn’t bloat the public defender’s office with unnecessary economic fat. A “less government” type of leader is the best type of leader in both regards. Accordingly, a traditional Republican is the best candidate for this post.

Maybe that’s why three Republicans are running for Florida’s 7^th Judicial Circuit Public Defender post, in an effort to obtain the seat being vacated by longtime Public Defender Jim Purdy, who is retiring when his current four-year term ends later this year. Purdy has held the position for over 15 years.

Gennusa’s opponents are not bozos. They are well-credentialed attorneys. George Burden, a 60-year-old veteran public defender, who nowadays works in the office’s appeals division, is vying for the top spot. A politician who served on the Daytona Beach City commission for four terms, he also previously served for that city’s housing authority. Matthew Metz, 33, has experience with the  7^th Judicial Circuit Public Defender’s Office as well; he worked there as an intern and then, upon graduation from law school, he has continued his work at this office. Now a felony division chief, to date, Metz has practiced law for approximately nine years.

While Burden and Metz bring public defender office practice to the plate, so does Gennusa. A hard-punching attorney, she worked as a public defender in one of the toughest outfits in the country for over four years: in the Bronx, New York. Initiating her career at that office, Gennusa was immediately thrown into the legal world’s most blazing fire, in handling a case load of hundreds of cases at once. There, she tried an inordinate number of cases, covering nearly every type of criminal matter. Her clients were indigent and, often, those who had been most abused by the system.

In 1999, Gennusa moved to Florida, where she started a renowned criminal defense/family law practice after a short stint with the state attorney’s office. For the last 20 years, she has been one of the most recognizable legal faces in the courts of Florida’s 7^th Judicial Circuit. Unlike her competitors (Burden and Metz), Gennusa brings a wide-ranging legal skill set into this contest. While she has considerable public defender experiences, she is not a career staffer; this is very beneficial in ultimately becoming the leader of a public defender’s office. In having handled thousands of cases in total (and trying hundreds of those cases), she has covered, with superior expertise, a breadth of matters in private criminal and family law matters, as well as being experienced in multiple other practice areas. This has resulted in Gennusa becoming an eminent member of the Florida bar, who is familiar to a large range of lawyers. In being the Public Defender, that leadership position requires much more than just a knowledge of the office. Most career staff workers do not have the requisite legal – and business – range to head such a large office. Gennusa, with both the public defender office and private representation pedigree, for over 25 years, is the only candidate in this race with such qualifications. But this background, alone, is not what makes her stand out so far from the field.

It’s what some may call an intangible.

Or a special type of character.

Or a unique form of respect.

It’s not that Metz and Burden are ones who do not deserve respect for their work; they do. It’s simply, however, that Gennusa has that rare “star power” character and respect. She’s one who captivates. A person who others feel comfortable around, yet protected. She inspires. Gennusa, in short, is a leader who actually leads. And that’s rare.

And, Gennusa also has something else above and beyond those opposing her: she is the only one with chief executive experience, as identified on her campaign website:

“[Gennusa] is the only candidate with real chief executive experience. She has owned and operated two successful businesses other than her law firm. She has created budgets, created jobs, hired and fired, and lived within that budget. “[Gennusa] is the ONLY candidate with two Master’s Certificates, one in Human Resource Management and a second in Government Contracting. That is important for this job. The Public Defender is the chief executive of an office that oversees attorneys, staff and a budget of over 10 million dollars. We deserve someone that doesn’t need on the job training, someone who can hit the ground running and serve the people.”

Anne Marie Gennusa is an impressive, strong person, with an impressive, strong background. She’s a Republican who cares, at the utmost level, for the protection of individuals’ constitutional rights; she believes, at her core, in “innocent until proven guilty” and “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” She won’t be bullied by the Democrats who once purported to believe the same – and many of whom have now abandoned those key principles. Gennusa is also a Republican who understands other paramount Republican principles: to not waste taxpayers’ money, but, rather, to save them money. To that end, she can bring integral budgeting skills to the office. As a bright, resilient – and multi-faceted, experienced attorney and leader – Gennusa is the right choice to be the next Public Defender in Florida’s 7^th Judicial Circuit.

Given the Democrats’ considerable departure from the civil-liberties-protection arena, the Republican Primary is the crucial election date for this elected office (the Public Defender is elected in Florida, not appointed like in many other states). Since, currently, there are just three candidates who are running for this post – all of whom, as aforementioned, are Republicans – the GOP primary, on August 18, will determine the ultimate winner. Anyone, from any party and those who are unaffiliated, can vote in the GOP Primary. The winner of this Republican Primary, on August 18, will be the winner of the election (as there will be no subsequent “general” election) and, thus, that winner will be the next Public Defender in Florida’s 7^th Judicial Circuit. And that winner should be Anne Marie Gennusa.

Candy Stallworth, an Empire State News staff writer, whipped her way through a doctoral education at the finest of American higher ed institutions, noting how unoriginal, inept, and annoying many of the schools’ professors were in their robotic attempts to maintain a politically correct narrative. BTW: she hates words like “narrative”, “optics”, and “gaffe.” Other than that, her turn-offs include non-masculine men, women who hate men, men who hate men, phonies, disloyal people, and overflowing garbage cans. She likes New England clam chowder better than Manhattan clam chowder, but prefers Manhattan to New England.

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.