NERO FIDDLED WHILE ROME BURNED. ARE LORETTA RUSH AND GOVERNOR MIKE BRAUN WATCHING INDIANA'S RULE OF LAW GO UP IN FLAMES?

Even the Trooper hides his face! These are the worst justices of the Indiana Supreme Court in History. FACTS MATTER!

HOOSIER ENQUIRER | October 20, 2026

INDIANAPOLIS — Nearly 2,000 years ago, Roman Emperor Nero became history's enduring symbol of failed leadership. Legend says he fiddled while Rome burned in A.D. 64, seemingly indifferent to the destruction surrounding him. The fiddle had not yet been invented, and historians dispute the story, but the expression survives because its warning remains timeless: What happens when leaders appear more concerned with maintaining power than confronting the crises unfolding on their watch?

Mike Braun talks with local leaders in Cities and Towns but seems to forget about his obligation to protecting the rule of law and using his executive powers to file Writs and oversight. He is learning on the job while being schooled by the powers that run Indiana.

Indiana now faces its own questions about leadership. Chief Justice Loretta Rush has presided over the state's judiciary since 2014, while Governor Mike Braun took office in January 2025 promising accountability and reform. Their constitutional responsibilities are different, but both occupy positions of enormous influence over Indiana's institutions.

The Hoosier Enquirer has repeatedly raised concerns about attorney discipline, judicial accountability, child welfare, domestic violence and the protection of constitutional rights.

Mark Massa above is a survivalist who was appointed by his client MItch Daniels, like Rush was as well. My Man Mitch often said he never appoints smart judges based on his believe that the courts should be the third branch, but in Indiana the court has too much state constituional authority, which maybe there should be a future ballot effort to change--that is if Braun cares to address the many failures under his governorship and all those since Massa and Rush were appointed by then-Governor Daniels.

These problems cannot all be attributed to Rush or Braun, but neither leader should escape scrutiny simply because responsibility is divided among branches of government.

Rush and the Erosion of Judicial Confidence

Under Rush's leadership, Indiana's attorney disciplinary system has become the subject of significant controversy. Critics question inconsistent sanctions, lengthy proceedings, procedural fairness and the difficulty of reopening cases when new evidence challenges earlier findings.

Attorney General Todd Rokita's October 1 federal lawsuit against current and former disciplinary officials has intensified that debate. Rokita alleges retaliation and selective enforcement arising from disputes over his political speech and professional conduct. Those allegations have not been established by a court, but the litigation puts the disciplinary system's procedures under renewed scrutiny.

The Hoosier Enquirer believes Indiana should examine whether its attorney disciplinary process provides sufficient independence, meaningful due process and fair opportunities to correct errors. The judiciary's credibility depends not on pretending mistakes never happen, but on demonstrating that they can be corrected.

A court system that demands accountability from everyone else must be willing to examine its own conduct.

Braun's Responsibility: Child Welfare and Public Safety

Governor Braun does not control Indiana Supreme Court decisions or attorney disciplinary judgments. But he does oversee the executive agencies responsible for many services affecting vulnerable families, including the Department of Child Services.

Indiana foster care entries increased approximately 30% between federal fiscal years 2023 and 2024, compared with a national decline. Those figures predate Braun's administration, but the consequences of child welfare policy now fall squarely within his government's responsibilities.

Braun's administration has taken steps to reorganize DCS. Its Awaken initiative reduced the agency's regional structure from 18 regions to five, with the stated goal of improving communication and redirecting an estimated $4 million to $8 million toward frontline child safety. In April 2026, Braun appointed Jennifer Dorfmeyer as DCS director.

Those actions deserve examination on their results. How many children are safer? Are caseworkers responding faster? Are families receiving adequate support? Are wrongful removals being prevented? And are children who cannot safely return home reaching permanent placements without unnecessary delays?

Reorganization is not the same thing as reform unless measurable outcomes improve.

Domestic Violence: A Test for Both Branches

Domestic violence illustrates why the governor and chief justice cannot simply point toward each other's responsibilities.

Law enforcement, prosecutors and state agencies must respond to threats, investigate crimes and support victims. Courts must provide fair hearings, issue appropriate protective orders and ensure that their decisions comply with the law.

Indiana recorded 83 domestic violence-related fatalities in 2024, according to figures previously reported by the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the state's fatality review process. The human consequences extend beyond the victims to children, relatives and entire communities.

Rush has acknowledged domestic violence as a serious public health problem in judicial opinions. Braun's 2026 agenda has emphasized accountability for violent and repeat offenders, including a proposal concerning preventive detention.

The question for both leaders is whether those statements and initiatives translate into better protection, lawful enforcement and fewer preventable tragedies.

Two Branches of Government, One Public Trust

Indiana's separation of powers is essential. The governor cannot order the Supreme Court to reopen a disciplinary case, and the chief justice cannot direct DCS caseworkers or command state police investigations.

But separation of powers should never become an excuse for avoiding accountability.

Braun can propose legislation, appoint qualified officials, demand agency performance data and advocate for transparent institutional reforms. Rush can lead judicial administrative initiatives, support procedural improvements and participate in decisions that protect constitutional rights.

Both leaders can encourage independent examination of systemic failures without interfering with individual cases. Rush claims to have had her life threaten by a nutjob in the statehouse, but that wasn't true in the end. She has more security of some leaders in Ukraine. Is she just a person who makes enemies and acts irrational and almighty, like Nepolean and other short people tend to do?

The Hoosier Enquirer believes Indiana needs a transparent review of attorney regulation, child welfare, domestic violence protection and judicial accountability. That review should distinguish proven failures from disputed allegations, identify responsible institutions and establish measurable standards for improvement.

Indiana Cannot Afford to Watch Its Institutions Burn

The Nero analogy is not an accusation that either leader is deliberately destroying Indiana's legal system. It is a warning about the consequences of institutional complacency.

Rush has served long enough to be judged on the judiciary's record during her tenure. Braun is still early in his governorship, but he now bears responsibility for the performance of the executive branch and for the reforms he has promised.

The public does not need another round of speeches about accountability. It needs accessible records, fair procedures, effective child protection, safer communities and evidence that government can recognize and correct its mistakes.

Rome eventually rebuilt after its great fire. Rebuilding public confidence in a damaged institution can be far more difficult.

Indiana's rule of law belongs to its citizens—not to the governor, the associate or chief justice or the political establishment.

The responsibility to protect it cannot be passed from one branch of government to another.