Potential Trump Administration Supreme Court Picks-Diane S. Sykes

Loading...
Federal Judge Diane S. Sykes speaks at the investitute for Rebecca Bradley Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at the Milwaukee County Courthouse in Milwaukee, Wis. Bradley was appointed by Gov. Scott Walker to serve on the District 1 Court of Appeals, where she replaced the late Judge Ralph Adam Fine, who died in December. Bradley, who was appointed to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in 2012 and re-elected in 2013, has presided in Children's Court.
 

Diane Sykes is a favorite of conservative legal scholars. She is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit who was appointed by President Bush and had been mentioned has a potential Supreme Court nominee in his second term. President elect Trump has said that he would consider her for a Supreme Court appointment.

Sykes graduated from Brown Deer high school in 1976 and then earned her B.S. degree in journalism at Northwestern University in 1980. Four years later she earned her J.D. at Marquette University Law School. After law school, Sykes clerked for Judge Terence T. Evans at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. From 1985 to 1992, she worked in private practice as a litigator for a medium-sized law firm in Milwaukee, Whyte & Hirschboek.

Sykes won the election to a newly created trial judge seat on the Milwaukee Court circuit in 1992. She served in the misdemeanor, felony and civil divisions until 1999 when she left for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. She served until her appointment to the Seventh Circuit in 2004.

President George W. Bush nominated Sykes to a seat on the Seventh Circuit on November 14, 2003 with the Senate Judiciary Committee approving her nomination 14-5 on March 11, 2004. She was confirmed 70-27 by the U.S. Senate on June 24, 2004 becoming the first judge appointed to the Seventh Circuit by Bush. Sykes began serving on the court with Judge Evans, the very judge she clerked for at the beginning of her law career.

Sykes has a long list of notable cases with the Supreme Court of Wisconsin as well as with the Seventh Circuit of U.S. Court of Appeals. She is also the author of multiple law review articles.





Loading...
  • iqra

    Everybody can make 103 dollars every hour by doing online easy work.I received 10k+ every month by doing work online.Follow this link for details about this work……..
    !!mk157h

    =-=->>> https://www.facebook.com/34587654-197991613991722/app/190322544333196/?ref=page_internal
    !!mk157h
    ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡::::::!!mk157h:::::+–=-=-=-=8545212747

  • Jon_Roland

    It is Diane Sykes, not Skyes.

    • zarmina

      Everybody can make 103 dollars every hour by doing online easy work.I received 10k+ every month by doing work online.Follow this link for details about this work……..
      !!lu248h

      =-=->>> https://www.facebook.com/9874567-1144300115623708/app/190322544333196/?ref=page_internal
      !!lu248h
      ✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡✡::::::!!lu248h:::::+.,,,9654854259655412563415

  • Concerned parent

    I wondered if Ted Cruz may have made it on this list. Maybe Trump has another position for him.

    • kibitzer3

      Conservatives need to wake up to the fact that Cruz has lied to the American people about being eligible for the office of the POTUS. He is not a ‘natural born’ citizen. The definition of that term, as understood by the constitutional Framers, is a person “born in the country, of parents who are citizens…” (That’s what makes it ‘natural,’ for heaven’s sake.) And that eligibility requirement for that particular office STILL STANDS, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary.

      Conservatives need to get over their infatuation with Cruz. He is a fake.

      • Concerned parent

        I am not infatuated with Cruz, but having watched him on defending issues that are important – climate change, marriage, pro life, he is a fighter.
        Since Trump seems to want to reach out to his opponents, I thought Cruz may be a good ally, and he even came out and endorsed Trump, unlike Romney the waffler.

      • budabobnu

        Cruz was Texas’s Solicitor General and successfully argued every case in favor of Texas before the US Supreme Court. You are not able to do that well is you are not steeped in Constitutional Law.

        • kibitzer3

          He is “steeped in Constitutional Law” as taught to him by liberal law professors like Alan Dershowitz, who believe – cynically – that the Constitution is “a living document,’ rather than the contract that it is, between the States and the federal government, which can only be amended in substantive matters – like the eligibility requirements for the office of the presidency – the way allowed for IN the contract.

          He may have been taught that the NBC term was ‘modified’ by the Naturalization Act of 1790 (which Act he has in fact claimed for his stance on the issue); but if so – to give him the benefit of the doubt – he wasn’t taught that that Act of Congress was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795 ON THIS VERY ISSUE, of having been misleading in its use of the NBC term; and which repeal was signed off on by no less highly authoritative sources than J. Madison, as a Congressman at the time, and G. Washington, as President. And in any event, no Act of Congress, or Resolution, or whatever, can Trump the Constitution. The only thing that can trump the Constitution is a constitutional amendment (or a treaty).

          This assault on the Constitution on this issue has been entered into by both major political parties of our day, as a self-serving illegal act; as attested to by the fact that both of them, between 2003 and ’08 alone, tried a total of 8 times to get amendments started through Congress watering down this strict requirement – proposals all of which had this issue as their common denominator – and they failed each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this NBC issue. So what did they do? It’s obvious what they did: They colluded, in an attempt to do an end-around on the Constitution on the matter; obviously figuring that between them, they had enough control over both the judicial branch of government and the MSM that they could get away with their treacherous act. But fortunately, there have been enough true constitutionalists to blow the whistle on this audacious exercise in oneupmanship, and the alternative media to help them reach the public, to alert Americans to the hijack of their country that is in progress, and has been going on ever since the Usurper who is in that awesome position of political power ascended his throne in 2008/9.

          It is long past time to correct this trashing of the Constitution that has taken place. Not build on the error. Which is an error, not just in “a damn piece of paper’ (as the Constitution has been referred to by another corrupt president of our time). But in the very rule of law in the country. Without which, we are being governed by the rule of men. A/k/a arbitrary law. A/k/a tyranny.

      • Cetansapa

        Don’t talk to us about not being a natural born citizen when we have had an illegal in the white house for the last eight years. Did you vote for that one?

        • kibitzer3

          No – and that is precisely why we are in the trouble that we are in today: because the Republican Party, as the official opposition party, failed to call Obama and the Democrat Party on his ineligibility; thus opening the door, not only to 8 years of nation-destroying under the Usurper, but to their putting up their OWN ineligible candidates for the office. Both parties having failed to get a constitutional amendment on the issue starting through Congress previously, as I indicated in another comment of mine below in this thread. So, the Republican Party is just as culpable in the damage that has been done to this nation under the Usurper as the Democrats are.

          We are being governed by a class of miscreants. They ALL need to be turfed out of their positions of power – and responsibility.

          • Cetansapa

            I agree with you. When Pelosi certified him as an eligible candidate the incredibly courageous and patriotic republicans sat silently on their hands and went along with it probably out of fear of being branded as racist. Or possibly some had deeper motives? Then for eight years they refused to raise any effective resistance as he and his fellow criminals systematically worked to destroy our constitutional way of governing. Your last two sentences are right on and I hold almost all the republicans (there were a few that tried to shed light on his corruption and malfeasance and abuse of executive power) equally guilty of what they allowed him to do.