Indiana's Judicial Kingdom: Loretta Rush, the Buckley Case and a Court System That Refuses to Police Itself

It is well beyond a clown show. It's play time!

When judges are treated differently in Indiana from ordinary citizens, when judicial discipline becomes an exercise in institutional self-preservation, Judges are shot at strip clubs, and when violence reaches the homes of judges or crazy people are threatening the Chief Justice, perhaps it is time to stop blaming everyone else and examine the leadership of Indiana's judiciary.

Indiana has a judicial accountability problem among so many problems it is a wonder how the state leaders and media can continue to ignore the facts and truth about Loretta Rush. It is here sex? And it is considerably bigger than one drunk judge, one criminal conviction, or one disciplinary proceeding. Her failings are pervasive and yet being ignored by far too many.

Yes, at the center of this problem and every problem sits Chief Justice Loretta Rush, herself, who has supervised Indiana's judicial branch for far too long. She is old and needs to look in a mirror. Under her leadership, the public has been asked to trust an institution that exercises enormous power over the lives, liberty, property, and constitutional rights of Hoosiers.

Lawyers claim they were framed with her hinchman engaging in proscutorial misconduct on a scale that needs review in a fake ethics system with no evidence of "second changes." While judges get slapped on the wrist or nothing, when they sould be fired immediately and their law licenses revoked through disbarments.

Where is the corresponding accountability?

Take the Christopher Buckley case, which provides another example of the system's fundamental problems...slow, inconsistent, and PR campaign with no teeth and riddled with hypocracies. It shows the need for both reform and new people in charge.

Buckley pleaded guilty to operating while intoxicated following his August 2026 arrest. His reported blood-alcohol concentration was .221%. He received a 60-day sentence, with 58 days suspended, and 180 days of probation.

The criminal court handled the criminal case.

Now the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications has filed a separate disciplinary proceeding, Case No. 26S-JD-373, to determine what professional consequences should follow.

Why?

The Supreme Court already has the criminal conviction. The public already knows the underlying conduct. Yet the judicial establishment must conduct another proceeding, with another opportunity for procedural maneuvering and potentially another negotiated resolution.

This is not a question of denying anyone due process. It is a question of why judges appear to need an additional system of accountability that ordinary citizens do not receive.

A criminal conviction should have consequences for judicial office. Where the conduct demonstrates a fundamental failure of public trust, removal should be the presumptive outcome, subject to a prompt and fair process. It should not take another prolonged exercise in judicial administration to determine whether the public should continue entrusting someone with a courtroom.

Loretta Rush: Who holds the Chief Justice accountable?

Indiana's Supreme Court has original constitutional authority over judicial discipline and removal. The Commission investigates and brings charges, but the Supreme Court ultimately decides the matter.

That creates an obvious institutional problem: the judiciary largely polices its own.

Rush is responsible for supervising the judicial branch, including its administrative operations and the system through which judicial officers are disciplined. That responsibility makes her leadership a legitimate subject of public scrutiny.

She was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2012, became Chief Justice in 2014, and was reappointed in 2024. She has held the state's highest judicial leadership position through years of growing public frustration with the courts.

The question is not whether Rush has a lengthy résumé or whether she has participated in judicial conferences and administrative initiatives.

The question is what measurable improvements Hoosiers have received in judicial accountability, transparency, efficiency, and public confidence.

A court system cannot measure its success exclusively by the number of cases processed, electronic filing improvements, or administrative programs launched.

Justice must also be measured by fairness, consistency, accountability, and whether ordinary citizens believe the system applies the same standards to everyone.

The Chief Justice cannot claim responsibility for supervising the judiciary while treating its failures as somebody else's problem.

When judges themselves become victims of violence, the public deserves more than another security webinar

Indiana has experienced two particularly disturbing episodes involving judges.

In May 2019, Clark County Judges Andrew Adams and Bradley Jacobs were shot in Indianapolis following an evening of socializing during a judicial conference. Their visit to the Red Garter strip club became part of the public controversy surrounding the incident.

The shooting raised serious questions about judicial conduct, judgment, and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Then came January 18, 2026. Tippecanoe County Judge Steven Meyer and his wife were shot at their Lafayette home. Five people were subsequently arrested in connection with the shooting. According to reporting, the investigation involved individuals connected to a high-ranking gang member whose case was scheduled to come before Meyer.

These are not minor public-relations problems. They are extraordinary events that should force a serious examination of judicial security, courtroom practices, threats, and the relationship between the courts and the communities they serve.

Rush responded by urging judges to remain vigilant and organizing a judicial security webinar. The Supreme Court also publicized a survey in which 159 of 214 responding judges reported having been threatened.

That is a disturbing statistic. But security cannot be the only conversation.

What about the public's confidence in the judicial process? What about the litigants who believe they cannot get a fair hearing? What about people who spend years and enormous sums of money attempting to obtain justice? What about the growing hostility between citizens and the institutions that are supposed to resolve their disputes peacefully?

The violence against judges is unacceptable. No disagreement with a court ruling justifies shooting a judge or threatening a judge's family.

But the judiciary must also be willing to examine the institutional conditions that contribute to public alienation. Security measures protect buildings and people. They do not automatically restore confidence in the administration of justice.

The Supreme Court cannot be both the referee and the exclusive judge of its own performance

The problem is structural.

Indiana's judicial establishment has substantial control over judicial appointments, professional discipline, court administration, and the removal of judges. It is a system with considerable institutional independence and limited direct public oversight between retention elections.

The 2024 retention election does not end the debate. Rush received approximately 71% support, but a retention vote is not a substitute for continuous transparency and accountability.

The public should be able to examine how disciplinary decisions are made, why particular sanctions are selected, how long cases take, and whether similar conduct receives similar treatment.

Why should disciplinary proceedings against judges take months when the criminal justice system can resolve the underlying criminal charges much faster?

Why should a judge who has already received previous disciplinary intervention receive another opportunity for a negotiated resolution?

Why should the public have to accept a system in which the institution responsible for protecting judicial integrity is also responsible for deciding how much accountability its own members must endure?

These are not attacks on judicial independence. They are questions about whether judicial independence has become confused with institutional immunity.

Indiana needs structural reform, not another public-relations campaign

The General Assembly and the people of Indiana should examine whether the present judicial disciplinary structure provides sufficient independent accountability.

A serious reform agenda should include:

1. An independent public review of judicial disciplinary procedures, including negotiated agreements and repeat misconduct.

2. Mandatory, expedited consideration of removal following qualifying criminal convictions involving public trust.

3. Published standards explaining why judges receive particular sanctions.

4. Independent audits of judicial administration, case delays, and disciplinary outcomes.

5. Public reporting of judicial threats, courthouse security deficiencies, and the resources needed to protect judges, employees, litigants, and the public.

6. A constitutional review of whether the present system gives the public adequate authority to hold the judiciary accountable.

   
   

Isn't that the Six Flags guy seated next to Rush?

And the leadership question must be addressed. Justice Mark Massa is even worse, a blow hard with an ego larger than the Roller Coaster his Six-Flags doppleganger clown promoted.

https://youtu.be/EbXSbP-wEFU?si=8j5EWZX30hbbMEUX

Rush has been Chief Justice long enough that she cannot indefinitely point to inherited problems or administrative complications. The public is entitled to evaluate her record and demand a different direction.

If Indiana wants to restore confidence in its courts, it needs leadership willing to acknowledge institutional failures rather than simply defend the institution.

The bench is not a private club

The public does not elect judges to establish an insulated professional class. It entrusts them with extraordinary authority because the judicial branch is supposed to be independent, impartial, and accountable to the Constitution.

When that trust breaks down, the answer cannot always be another committee, another agreement, another hearing, another press release, or another request for patience.

Buckley should face the consequences of his criminal conviction through a prompt determination of his eligibility to continue serving as a judge. The same principle of accountability must apply throughout the judicial establishment.

And Rush's leadership should be subject to serious public examination, including whether a change in leadership is necessary to restore confidence.

Indiana does not need a judiciary that is better at defending itself. It needs one that is better at delivering justice.

The people of Indiana are not required to treat the Supreme Court as beyond criticism simply because it sits at the top of the courthouse. So, where is the Governor and the General Assembly? Aren't they required to be checks and balances? And if not change the Indiana Constitution in 2 years to remove exclusive SC jurisdiction, like the ballot initiatives this year to expand the bonding power of judges, and where city and town court judges can live.

The Constitution created an independent judiciary to protect the people, not an independent institution to protect itself from the people.

It is time to remember who ultimately owns the system: the citizens of Indiana.