Automated short-answer grading (ASAG) remains a challenging task due to the linguistic variability of student responses and the need for nuanced, rubric-aligned partial credit. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising solution, their reliability as automated judges in rubric-based settings requires rigorous assessment. In this paper, we systematically evaluate the performance of LLM-judges for rubric-based short-answer grading. We investigate three key aspects: the alignment of LLM grading with expert judgment across varying rubric complexities, the trade-off between uncertainty and accuracy facilitated by a consensus-based deferral mechanism, and the model's robustness under random input perturbations and adversarial attacks. Using the SciEntsBank benchmark and Qwen 2.5-72B, we find that alignment is strong for binary tasks but degrades with increased rubric granularity. Our "Trust Curve" analysis demonstrates a clear trade-off where filtering low-confidence predictions improves accuracy on the remaining subset. Additionally, robustness experiments reveal that while the model is resilient to prompt injection, it is sensitive to synonym substitutions. Our work provides critical insights into the capabilities and limitations of rubric-conditioned LLM judges, highlighting the importance of uncertainty estimation and robustness testing for reliable deployment.