ILNews

Rush named to Indiana Supreme Court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A judge with a statewide reputation as a leader in juvenile justice was named Friday as Indiana’s 108th Supreme Court justice and the second woman to serve on the high court.

Tippecanoe Superior Judge Loretta Rush, 54, said she was thrilled to get the news that Gov. Mitch Daniels had selected her from a field of three finalists to replace retired Justice Frank Sullivan Jr.

“I hope your hearing has come back to your left ear,” Rush quipped to Daniels, who called Rush on Thursday to confirm that he had chosen to appoint her.

“I intend to work with the other four justices to build on our Supreme Court’s record of excellence, integrity and respect for the law,” Rush said in her official statement. She said that as a judge, she’s been “a beneficiary of the standard set by the Indiana Supreme Court.”

Indiana had been one of three states, along with Idaho and Iowa, without a woman on its Supreme Court, but Daniels said gender played a small role in his choice.

“As I’ve said on many, many previous occasions, quality comes first,” Daniels said. He called Rush’s years in private practice and on the bench stellar and said her background and judicial temperament made her stand out.

“I’m utterly convinced Indiana is making the best possible choice,” he said.

In addition to overseeing the Tippecanoe County court that deals with juvenile cases, Rush chairs the Indiana Juvenile Justice Improvement Committee that has worked to better and standardize child welfare practices. She also is the president of the 113-member Indiana Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

“No one has been more respected in this area than Judge Rush,” Daniels said.

Rush accepted the appointment with her husband, James, and three of her four children beside her. “Having my family’s support is huge,” she said.

Rush said she believes in judicial restraint and cited the opinions of Antonin Scalia when asked about U.S. Supreme Court justices she respects. Daniels praised Rush for “respect for the meaning of words as they are written.”

With Daniels next year taking the helm at Purdue University, he chose in Rush a Boilermaker alum who worked her way through Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

Out of law school, Rush worked in private practice with fellow Purdue grad and Chief Justice Brent Dickson at Dickson Reiling Teder and Withered in Lafayette.

“I was a lawyer in Lafayette when our firm was privileged to hire Loretta to work for us,” Dickson said Friday. “She’s a product of Indiana education at its best. … She’s going to be a great addition to the court.”

Daniels said Rush indicated a hope and ambition to serve on the court for many years, which he said would be important to foster the court’s reputation for continuity.

Rush’s application to the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission can be viewed on the court's website.

Rush will replace Sullivan, who retired from the court July 31 to teach at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Since Sullivan’s retirement, the court has issued just one opinion.

When Rush will join the Supreme Court is uncertain. A formal robing ceremony has not been set. Rush said she must clear her active caseload in Tippecanoe County, and Dickson said the Supreme Court will appoint a temporary judge to fill in until Daniels names a replacement.

Rush will join Myra Selby as Indiana’s only other female justice. Selby served on the Supreme Court from 1995 to 1999.

Rush is Daniels’ third appointment to the five-member panel, having previously named justices Steven David to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Ted Boehm and Mark Massa to succeed former Chief Justice Randall Shepard, who stepped down this year.

The other finalists were Hamilton Superior Judge Steve Nation and attorney Geoffrey Slaughter.


 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT