undefined

In the oral argument on December 1, 2021, on the issue of the 2018 Mississippi abortion law, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?  I don’t see how it is possible.”  This made me think about the “stench” that is currently taking place in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago under the questionable leadership of Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes, who is currently involved in protecting a judge, Michael S. Kanne, from verifiable allegations of case fixing activity, which Sykes is attempting to sweep under the rug.  The “stench” is very strong.

As I took in Justice Sotomayor’s comment about the “stench” of the Supreme Court, I couldn’t help but think about Amy Coney Barrett’s contribution to that stench, since she apparently isn’t so much of a committed “originalist” that she claims to be, and she apparently doesn’t really believe in precedent and in the doctrine of Stare Decisis, which is a principle that courts should follow precedent by previously decided cases with similar facts and issues to provide certainty and consistency in the administration of justice, as she claims that she supports.  https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-hearing-originalism.html. 

It is noteworthy that she (Barrett) came directly from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago where she sat side by side with Diane S. Sykes, who also has visions of grandeur in becoming a member of the Supreme Court - but it should not happen due to Sykes’ protectionism of case fixing that is going on in the Seventh Circuit, the court that she leads.  It is apparent that Amy Coney Barrett and Diane S. Sykes have something in common, they both publicly pronounce themselves to be something that they actually are not - in Barrett’s case, she claims to be an originalist who believes in the doctrine of Stare Decisis, i.e., the following of established precedent, and in Diane S. Sykes’ case, she also claims to be a stickler for precedent, and has described herself as an “original-textualist”, but the facts demonstrate that she has no problem in disregarding established precedent, and that her public statements about her judicial belief in following precedent are nothing more than self-serving propaganda.

In a Newsweek article titled “A look at Diane Sykes, Possible Trump SCOTUS Nominee” published on December 13, 2016, a YouTube video was included where Sykes commented that “Most cases come to us with an established doctrine or decision framework for deciding the case and so, umm umm, it’s very often in our cases that these, umm, global theories of interpretation won’t be debated umm among the judges or among the lawyers because they’re well established in our law and we as a lower appellate court have the responsibility to follow whatever doctrine and framework the Supreme Court gives to us.”  https://www.newsweek.com/profile-diane-sykes-trumps-possible-scotus-nominee-531588. 

Yet Sykes chose to not follow the so called “doctrine and framework the Supreme Court gives to us” when it came to my request that she, as chief judge, request to the Chief Justice of the United States that he transfer the judicial-misconduct proceeding I filed against her brethren judge, Michael S. Kanne, to the judicial council of another circuit pursuant to Rule 26, in order that Sykes and her minions wouldn’t be able to come running to Kanne’s rescue, which Sykes and her minions indeed did.  Rather than honoring her public words, Sykes instead chose to honor this circuit’s history of proclivity toward flexing its judicial muscle to ensure that judicial malfeasance issues are swept under the rug such as what she is currently doing as chief judge by protecting the criminal case fixing conduct of Judge Michael S. Kanne addressed in the current judicial-misconduct complaint, of which case fixing was disclosed by longtime and now retired federal court of appeals Judge Richard A. Posner. 

The hypocrisy of Sykes’ public statements from the 2014 State Bar of Wisconsin annual meeting compared to her actions in the current judicial misconduct proceeding demonstrates Sykes’ lack of judicial integrity and reveals her for the person and judge that she truly is, a judge who says one thing but does another.  As John F. Kennedy once famously said “As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.”  Clearly, Diane S. Sykes has not lived by her own words.

Covering up information about judicial case fixing and protecting a corrupt judge is a very serious offense.  Sykes’ cover up of Kanne’s case fixing as disclosed by Judge Posner is a crime under the laws of the United States.  According to the Supreme Court, any judge who does not comply with his/her oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land.  The judge is engaged in an act of acts of treason. S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821). This makes Sykes’ and her judicial minions treasonous judges according to the Supreme Court’s precedent.

The Peace & Justice Center has characterized Sykes as "the country's worst judge."  https://peaceandjustice.org/meet-the-worst-judge-in-america/.  Marge Baker, executive vice president of People for the American Way, has been quoted as saying that Sykes is a “far-right” judicial activist and that “Her record shows she’s willing to put women’s lives at risk to further her personal ideology.”  Marge Baker also said, “She’s also undermined principles fundamental to our Constitution throughout her career” and said, “For instance, she was the sole dissent in a case reversing a conviction because a juror did not understand English…She should not sit on the Supreme Court.”  https://www.newsweek.com/profile-diane-sykes-trumps-possible-scotus-nominee-531588. 

Diane S. Sykes has been mentioned as a possible nominee to the United States Supreme Court, but certainly, since Sykes has so dangerously abused her power by spearheading a cover up of Kanne’s criminal conduct in fixing a decision, as disclosed by Judge Richard A. Posner, Sykes is therefore disqualified from any future consideration for an appointment to the United States Supreme Court.

Justice Sotomayor has proclaimed that the recent actions of the Supreme Court has created a stench to which there is a question as to whether or not the institution of the Supreme Court will survive its stench.  And now we must wonder if the Seventh Circuit as an institution will survive the stench created by the recent actions of Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes in protecting a corrupt judge from his case fixing activities, and her actions of attempting to sweep the case fixing activities under the rug.  At this point, the stench is very strong.