John Yoo quoted by KQED News, April 14, 2017
But in the case challenging the administration’s crackdown on sanctuary cities, UC Berkeley Law Professor John Yoo thinks the government is well within its rights. “It’s not unconstitutional for the federal government to place conditions on the use of funds, or to cut off funds altogether,” he said.
John Yoo interviewed by KQED-TV Newsroom, April 7, 2017
Presidents have long used force abroad without getting a declaration of war from congress. In fact, we haven’t declared war since World War II. … However, a lot of presidents want to have a show of political support from Congress, and so it may behoove Trump to go back and show some kind of support for the action.
John Yoo interviewed by WSJ Opinion Journal, April 6, 2017
“There was no filibuster in the original Constitution. There was no filibuster until 1837. So for the most basic and important questions of our country’s early history, there’d been no filibuster. … What the filibuster had become was a way to shut off debate, to prevent the Senate from taking our important issues of the day and moving forward to address them.”
John Yoo co-writes for The Wall Street Journal, April 6, 2017
Arcane and opaque rules have allowed a minority to paralyze the Senate and prevent consideration of nominees, treaties and legislation. Democracy is too important to permit winks, nods and obstruction to be the order of the day. Senators should stop worrying and learn to love the nuclear option.
John Yoo quoted by The Salt Lake Tribune, March 29, 2017
“This opinion is poorly reasoned; misconstrued a prior opinion, which came to the opposite result; and is inconsistent with constitutional, statutory, and case law governing the president’s exercise of analogous grants of power,” Yoo and Gaziano wrote. “Based on a more careful legal analysis, we believe that a general discretionary revocation power exists.”
John Yoo quoted by San Francisco Chronicle, March 27, 2017
“The more a nominee says, the more ammunition she applies to her opponents,” Yoo and Saikrishna Prakash … said Friday in an article for Fox News. They said Democrats “have tried to ‘Bork’ Gorsuch” — referring to the Senate’s rejection in 1987 of Supreme Court candidate Robert Bork, who expressed some of his conservative views at his confirmation hearing — but Gorsuch outsmarted them.
John Yoo co-writes for Fox News, March 24, 2017
If Democratic Senators had made any progress in attacking Gorsuch’s qualifications, record, or judicial philosophy, they could persuade their Republican colleagues to reject Gorsuch. With 48 Senators in their caucus, Democrats would only need persuade three Republicans to join them. But they cannot.
John Yoo quoted by Fox Business, March 22, 2017
“The city of Berkeley should not be discriminating based on political views…I think then you’re going to start getting the courts involved and it’s going to look very skeptically at what this city is doing,” advised John Yoo. … Political disagreements are “not a valid reason to break a contract,” which, warns Yoo, may violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, which prevents cities from discriminating against outside companies, and there’s no legal exception for political disagreements.
John Yoo quoted by Newsmax, March 21, 2017
“The scales are probably tilted toward believing that he would overturn Roe v. Wade,” John Yoo, a UC Berkeley law professor told Newsmax TV’s “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Tuesday. “In fact, I would be very surprised if he upheld Roe the way [Justice Anthony] Kennedy has. Be shocked, actually.”
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.”