ILNews

IBA: Interrogatories

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Tyler D. Helmond, Voyles Zahn & Paul

fuentesLuis Fuentes-Rohwer

Professor of Law and Harry T. Ice Faculty Fellow, Indiana University Maurer School of Law

He is a graduate of the University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Law School. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan and an LL.M from the Georgetown University School of Law. He is an expert on race, democracy, and Puerto Rico. He is Dr. Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, and he has been served with interrogatories.

Q: Much of your scholarship has focused on the Voting Rights Act. The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument later this month in Shelby County v. Holder, a case that challenges the constitutionality of the “preclearance” provision of the VRA. What will you be looking for in the argument?

A: I will be looking for a discussion of the original intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment over the scope of congressional powers. I will not be looking too hard, however. For some reason, originalists don’t spend a lot of time with the 14th Amendment. I’ll let you figure out why that is.



Q: Are you willing to make a prediction for how the case might come out?

A: Are you kidding? I love predictions! Like the Sebelius case, I just don’t think the Chief Justice wants the Court to strike down the Voting Rights Act under his watch. Imagine the headlines.



Q: There is a relatively new challenge to the procedure in which trial court judges are elected in Marion County. The plaintiff in Common Cause Indiana v. Indiana Secretary of State argues the unique system of primary election that ends up filling the entire bench with half Democratic nominees and half Republican nominees deprives Marion County citizens of the right to case a meaningful vote. What are your thoughts on how that questioned ought to be resolved?

A: Can you think of anything crazier than electing judges? Apparently, Marion County did. I am looking forward to reading how the Attorney General defends this process. It will be very challenging.



Q: The Maurer School of Law has lost three legendary faculty members recently: Patrick Baude, Dennis Long, and most recently, Leonard Fromm. What will be their legacies?

A: I don’t even know how you begin to replace them. They were remarkable teachers and mentors.



Q: You have three degrees from the University of Michigan and you teach at Indiana. Describe what you will be feeling on March 10th when the Hoosiers play the Wolverines in Ann Arbor in a game that could determine the Big Ten Title.

A: It was hard watching the first game, and it might be harder watching the finale. My youngest son couldn’t even watch the first one; he was very conflicted about it. I do think IU pulls it out and wins the Big Ten championship.

Q: President Obama recently remarked that if he had a son, he’d have to think long and hard before he would let him play football. With all of the challenges facing the modern law student – including rising tuition and diminishing job prospects – would you have any hesitation encouraging your children to go to law school?

A: On football, I agree with the president. But law school presents different challenges. If my children wanted to go to law school, I would ask them to be smart about it. Buying a legal education is not much different than buying anything else. Do your research and make smart decisions.



Q: Who has had the biggest influence on your writing? What advice would you give to law students and lawyers looking to improve their writing?

A: The biggest influence, believe it or not, was from a foreword I read a long time ago. The author didn’t quite say it like this, but the message was clear. Writing is a process and it “takes a village.” Don’t be afraid to take criticism, to ask for help, to edit your writing as many times as necessary. Great writing doesn’t just happen.



Q: What are the three best legal books of the past decade?

A: Oh man, that’s a tough question. If you are looking for fiction, anything by Grisham is quite entertaining. I loved Akhil Amar’s “America’s Constitution.” If I had to pick one book to recommend, it would have to be Fehrenbacher’s “The Dred Scott Case.”



Q: If you were starting a soccer team and you had to pick between Lionel Messi and Christiano Ronaldo, which would be the leader of Team LFR?

A: Will this be an MLS team? And will it be in Indianapolis? I am hoping this happens sometime soon. As for my pick, it’d have to be Ronaldo. If I picked anybody else, my boys would kill me.•

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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT