ILNews

Rush robing completes Supreme Court transition

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Justice Loretta Rush formally was robed the 108th justice of the Indiana Supreme Court on Friday, the third member of the five-member court appointed by Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Rush, formerly a Tippecanoe Superior judge who oversaw juvenile court in Lafayette, thanked her family, friends and Daniels, who appointed her the second woman to serve on the court.

“You have left an indelible mark on the state Supreme Court,” Rush remarked to Daniels, noting the qualities she had recognized since joining the court last month in his prior choices, justices Steven David and Mark Massa. “The jury’s still out on me,” Rush quipped.

Rush’s four children, Jacob, Mary, Sarah and Luke, took part in her robing ceremony before about 200 people in the Indiana Supreme Court courtroom. Another 100 people watched the ceremony on a video feed inside the Indiana Senate chamber.

“This would be a very good day to rob a bank in Lafayette,” Daniels joked. “Nobody’s home.”

But the governor said few decisions are taken as seriously as the appointment of a justice whose mark will be left on the laws of the state for years to come. “No decision I’ve had to make in this category was easier," Daniels said.

“I’m just so proud to be associated with this particular nomination,” he said.

“I owe a debt of gratitude to our entire community,” Rush said. “You hoisted me on your shoulders and brought me here.”

She noted that she kept photos of the children who appeared in her court beneath the glass top of her desk, and those photos have traveled with her to her statehouse chambers.

“Little did I know it was those children who were preparing me for today,” she said.

Daniels had felt pressure to select a woman during each of the three vacancies that occurred with the departures of Justice Ted Boehm, Chief Justice Randall Shepard and Justice Frank Sullivan. Indiana had been one of only three states whose supreme courts lacked a female justice.

“I look forward to the day a woman’s appointment to the court is unremarkable,” Rush said.

The first woman justice, Myra Selby, who served from 1995-1999, said she had gotten to know Rush since she joined the court, and noted that she even recognized some of her old furniture in the new justice’s chambers.

Selby noted that during Rush’s interviews before the Judicial Nominating Commission, “Justice Rush said she thought one of the ways the judiciary could improve was to increase its transparency.

“She will bring that through her unique voice,” Selby said.

Chief Justice Brent Dickson, who worked in private practice in Lafayette prior to his appointment to the bench, said Rush’s appointment “marks the completion of a massive transformation of the Indiana Supreme Court.” He praised Rush for her intellect, determination and respect for judicial precedent and restraint.

The three justices who joined the court in the last two years brought an end to the court’s most prolonged period of continuity in its history, Daniels noted. During that time, the court gained the admiration of court watchers around the country, he said.

“I hope it doesn’t diminish the occasion to say it reminds me a lot of our local football team,” he said, referencing the recent successful rebuilding of the Indianapolis Colts.

Along with Selby, former justices Boehm, Shepard and Sullivan attended Friday’s ceremony, as did her Supreme Court colleagues and members of the Indiana Tax Court and Indiana Court of Appeals.

Rush also paid tribute to her family, noting that when she was asked during the vetting process about her greatest accomplishment, she responded, “raising kind children. You are kind children,” she said.

She also noted that her robing also marked another special day, her son Jacob’s 11th birthday. “At 1 o’clock today, it’s all about you,” she told him during her remarks.
 

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. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  2. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

ADVERTISEMENT