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. @ President Snow, like they really read these comments or have the GUTS to show what is the right thing to do. They are just worrying about planning the next retirement party, the others JUST DO NOT CARE about what is right. Its the Good Ol'Boys - they do not care about the rights of the mother or child, they just care about their next vote, which, from what I gather, the mother left the state of Indiana because of the domestic violence that was going on through out the marriage, the father had three restraining orders on him from three different women, but yet, the COA judges sent a strong message, go ahead men put your women in place, do what you have to do, you have our backs... I just wish the REAL truth could be told about this situation... Please pray for this child and mother that God will some how make things right and send a miracle from above.

  2. I hear you.... Us Christians are the minority. The LGBTs groups have more rights than the Christians..... How come when we express our faith openly in public we are prosecuted? This justice system do not want to seem "bias" but yet forgets who have voted them into office.

  3. Perhaps the lady chief justice, or lady appellate court chief judge, or one of the many female federal court judges in Ind could lead this discussion of gender disparity? THINK WITH ME .... any real examples of race or gender bias reported on this ezine? But think about ADA cases ... hmmmm ... could it be that the ISC actually needs to tighten its ADA function instead? Let's ask me or Attorney Straw. And how about religion? Remember it, it used to be right up there with race, and actually more protected than gender. Used to be. Patrick J Buchanan observes: " After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” Harry Truman said we were. In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests." http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/#q3yVdhxDVMMxiCmy.99 I could link to any of my supreme court filings here, but have done that more than enough. My case is an exclamation mark on what PJB writes. BUT not in ISC, where the progressives obsess on race and gender .... despite a lack of predicate acts in the past decade. Interested in reading more on this subject? Search for "Florida" on this ezine.

  4. Great questions to six jurists. The legislature should open a probe to investigate possible government corruption. Cj rush has shown courage as has justice Steven David. Who stands with them?

  5. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

ADVERTISEMENT