Daniel Farber quoted by Earth Island Journal, March 30, 2017
“[Gorsuch] doesn’t strike me as a bomb thrower, that he’s going to come down with some striking decisions that wreak havoc,” Farber adds. “Given that the decision was going to be made by a Republican president, I don’t think that we were going to do much better than him in terms of environmental cases, and maybe in general.”
Daniel Farber, John Yoo, and Peter Schuck interviewed by World Affairs: Conversations that Matter, March 9, 2017
Farber: “The question of whether he can terminate a treaty that’s been ratified by the Senate … is a lot harder. … As a matter of U.S. law, he can do that. The international community may or may not view that as relieving us of our international obligations. That’s a separate question.”
Yoo: “We have to separate what’s good or bad as a matter of policy, and what’s legal. They’re different things. …The President does have the legal authority to add and subtract who he wants to be his adviser in foreign or domestic policy.”
Schuck: “Congress has granted the President very broad authority in the area that was impacted by the Executive Order concerning refugees—not just refugees, but anyone coming from those countries for a period of time.”
Daniel Farber writes for The Daily Californian, Feb. 21, 2017
In terms of Gorsuch’s general temperament, he seems to care deeply about the importance of following the law, regardless of personal inclinations about the outcomes of cases. That respect for the law and for the role of judges is a good sign.
Daniel Farber interviewed by KTVU Fox 2 News, Feb. 17, 2017
“Some of those lawsuits are still out there so he’s going to be in the position of supposedly leading the agency in defending or responding to lawsuits he himself was involved in,” Farber said. Farber says as head of the EPA, Pruitt won’t be able to change the laws. “In the area of regulation, he’s very much subject to oversight by the courts,” Farber said, noting there are other ways, however, that Pruitt can scale back the EPA’s reach.
Dan Farber writes for The Hill, Feb. 9, 2017
The regulatory process is very elaborate, and adopting a new regulation is a very expensive, time-consuming process. This executive order effectively triples the costs, because agencies not only have to enact new regulations, but also go through equally complex proceedings to eliminate two old ones. Basically, agencies will be able to propose about a third as many new rules as before.
John Yoo, Jesse Choper and Dan Farber quoted by The Daily Californian, Feb. 8. 2017
Yoo said Gorsuch’s past stances on religious liberty, such as in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. case in 2014, are most likely the reason he was considered for the nomination.
“Yes, (Gorsuch) is qualified, perhaps better than any other nomination (Trump) has made to cabinet seats,” Choper said.
Gorsuch is someone who is open-minded and does not have a knee-jerk response, Farber said. He added he believes Gorsuch’s past opinions on the 10th Circuit have had a more “humane” tone than Scalia’s.
Holly Doremus, Daniel Farber, and Bill Falik quoted by California Magazine, Feb. 6, 2017
Doremus: “There’s not a lot of existing border fencing in Texas, so the wall would have to pass through a lot of private land where barriers haven’t been much of an issue until now,” she says. “And certainly, eminent domain seizures are not popular with Republicans in general and Texas Republicans in particular.”
Farber: “The wall would cost a lot, and its benefits are unclear, but the Secure Fence Act does give the administration pretty broad powers to dispense with legal requirements such as NEPA. I’d love to see it stopped, but it may be difficult.”
Falik: “It’s really expensive,” observes Bill Falik, a lecturer at Berkeley Law and a real estate developer, “and I’m not completely sure at this point that a Republican congress is going to be anxious to go along with that.” Nor is Falik convinced that federal statutes such as the Endangered Species Act and NEPA would suddenly turn the project into smoldering rubble; rather, they might inflict the death of a thousand torts.
Daniel Farber quoted by The Washington Post, Feb. 2, 2017
“Based on what we know so far, trying to stall Neil Gorsuch’s nomination seems wrong on principle. I say that as someone who fervently supported Merrick Garland and found the GOP blockade of his nomination appalling. It’s understandable that many Democrats think it would be only fair to return the same treatment. But I think it would be wrong.”
Daniel Farber quoted by The Recorder (registration required), Feb. 1, 2017
UC Berkeley law professor Daniel Farber called the Gorsuch pick “a surprisingly reasonable choice for Trump.” Farber, who clerked at the U.S. Supreme Court for former Justice John Paul Stevens, said that Gorsuch looks “principled enough and like he’s got enough backbone to rule against Trump when he goes over the line.”
Daniel Farber writes for Politico Magazine, Feb. 1, 2017
The key thing about Gorsuch from my point of view is that he’s principled—and he seems to have enough backbone to stand up to Trump. We could use that on the court. The fact that Gorsuch has spoken against judicial deference to the executive branch in matters of statutory interpretation makes it more likely that he won’t rubber-stamp Trump’s actions.