Chief Justice Rush Lowered the “ Civil Discourse” With Her Own Orders, making her civility comments rich!

Not the besr of the brightest our state had to offer id est. DEI

Apparently, in modern Indiana judicial circles, asking a public official to resign may now qualify as an act roughly equivalent to kicking over a church potluck table, stealing the casserole, and insulting grandma’s rhubarb pie.

At least, one could be forgiven for reaching that conclusion after recent discussions about civility in Indiana’s legal system.

Rush knows she’s week so her orders are overly harsh and her strength is actually telling abuse of power. She’s that bad! Facts aren’t uncillvil or uncultured. She’s clearly both

Speeches about civility and pretending her life is at risk from nut job is a farce. Citizens are under no obligation to applaud leadership with which they disagree.

Nor are they required to remain silent.

Calling for a public official’s resignation is not violence. It is not intimidation. It is not incivility.

It is political speech.

And in a free society, public officials answer criticism not by lamenting its existence, but by addressing the underlying concerns.

Here’s a very serious question: What, exactly, is uncivil about calling for the resignation of a public official? Especially asking a DEI failed justice with a failed record of a failing legal education system, lack of qualified lawyers and access to justice deserts. Large firms that limp along over charging and haute for no good reason. Other that they own the judges.

Citizens call for the resignation of governors, presidents, legislators, mayors, prosecutors, police chiefs, school superintendents, and corporate CEOs every day. It is perhaps the oldest tradition in representative government, dating back to the days when colonists complained about King George III—often in considerably less polite language.

Yet somehow, when critics call for the resignation of Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush, the conversation suddenly shifts from the substance of the criticism to the tone of the critics.

That raises another question: Is it uncivil to criticize power, or merely inconvenient to those who possess it?

Critics of Indiana’s judicial system argue that the state’s attorney discipline process lacks transparency, that ordinary citizens struggle to obtain affordable legal representation, and that public confidence in the courts has eroded. Whether one agrees with those criticisms or not, they are matters of public concern worthy of debate.

Indeed, if citizens cannot vigorously criticize judges, lawyers, and courts, then who exactly is left to hold the judiciary accountable?

Satirically speaking, Indiana sometimes resembles a place where citizens are free to criticize the government—as long as they do so quietly, politely, briefly, and preferably while facing the wall.

One imagines an official “Indiana Civility Handbook”:

● Rule No. 1: Citizens may express concerns.

● Rule No. 2: Citizens may not express those concerns loudly.

● Rule No. 3: Citizens definitely may not ask anyone powerful to resign.

● Rule No. 4: See Rules 1 through 3.

To many Hoosiers, the real issue is not civility but confidence. When people believe they cannot obtain justice, cannot afford lawyers, or cannot effectively challenge institutions, frustration inevitably follows.

Public anger is not always pleasant, but neither is it automatically illegitimate.

The judiciary occupies a unique place in American government. Judges wield enormous authority over liberty, property, reputations, and livelihoods. With that authority comes scrutiny. A great deal of scrutiny.

No public official—not even a chief justice—is entitled to immunity from criticism.

Calls for resignation are not violence. They are not threats. They are not inherently uncivil. They are a form of political speech deeply rooted in American tradition.

Citizens have every right to say, respectfully or passionately, “We believe new leadership is needed.”

The proper response in a democracy is not to lament criticism. It is to answer it.

Because in the end, robust public debate may occasionally be uncomfortable, noisy, and even irritating. But history suggests that self-government has always been a little messy.

And Hoosiers, thankfully, still possess the constitutional right to complain about weak leaders with a track record they seek to hide.

Hoosier Enquirer has research enough cases and orders to see a pattern of her abuse of power and lies as well as Chief Justice Loretta Rush’s incredible lack of reasoning her signed and published orders —often finding facts not possible, not supported by evidence or common sense, and showing her utter incompetence, or proclivity to lie and rule with an iron fist.