ILNews

Rush takes oath as chief justice in understated event

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Choosing an intimate but profound setting in the Indiana Supreme Court Law Library to take the oath Aug. 18 as the state’s first female chief justice, Loretta Rush said the history in the tomes spoke volumes to her.

“I consider it to be a jewel of our Indiana Statehouse,” Rush said. “I love these law books,” representative of more than two centuries of the rule of law in the state.

Rush noted she told Chief Justice Brent Dickson that she’d like her swearing in to be “small, soon and in the law library.” She also suggested the speed at which the event was arranged was a good sign for government efficiency.

rush-15col.jpg Loretta Rush takes the oath to become chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court from Gov. Mike Pence, left, on Aug. 18, alongside her husband, Jim, and youngest son, Luke. (IL Photo/Dave Stafford)

The Judicial Nominating Commission on Aug. 6 selected Rush to be the next chief justice, succeeding Dickson, who will remain on the court as a justice until he faces mandatory retirement in July 2016.

Alongside her husband, Jim, and youngest son, Luke, Rush took the oath administered by Gov. Mike Pence. Saying it was proper to note the historic occasion, Pence also referred to her selection by the Judicial Nominating Commission, whose members said she was “quite simply, the best choice to lead the best state Supreme Court as its chief justice.”

Rush expressed gratitude to Dickson and longtime Justice Robert Rucker and also vowed to continue the collegial and collaborative atmosphere with Justices Steven David and Mark Massa.

“I look forward to many, many, many more years together,” Rush said to her colleagues.

The swearing-in ceremony lasted only about 45 minutes, including remarks from Dickson, Pence and Rush. Current and former justices along with judges of the Court of Appeals and Tax Court, Attorney General Greg Zoeller, Lt. Gov. Sue Ellspermann and other dignitaries attended.

“I haven’t been this nervous in a law library since my first year at law school across the street,” Pence quipped in marking a “new and historic chapter in Indiana’s highest court.”

Pence also saluted Dickson, who he said had been a mentor and friend to him for years before he was elected governor. Pence called Dickson’s tenure as chief short but substantive, and said it was marked by a commitment to the “longstanding tradition of excellence for this court.”

Dickson said, “I am really looking forward to having Chief Justice Rush at our helm,” saying she is “remarkably well-equipped to serve.”

He also noted Rush’s background – growing up in Lake County and Richmond before attending undergrad at Purdue University and graduating from the Indiana University Maurer School of Law in Bloomington, after which she served in private practice and on the bench in Tippecanoe County.

“Loretta Rush is Hoosier, through and through,” Dickson said. He said she’s also an innovator – “She can be a dynamo in leadership.”

Rush singled out a part of the Indiana Constitution highlighted in the law library – Article 1, Section 12 – that she said was inspiring to her. She read it aloud:

“All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be administered freely, and without purchase; completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay.”

Rush said her time to date on the court has been nothing less than inspiring.

“I guess there’s only one thing left to be said,” she concluded. “Let’s get back to work.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT