As the bipartisan coalition blocked the Patriot Act’s reuathorization today, Bill Frist, always one to take the high road, accused opponents of being soft on terrorism, and refused to consider a short-term extension until differences can be worked out. John Kyl warned that opponents of permanent reauthorization will face political consequences come next November.
It’s pretty obvious what the GOP strategy is. It’s just as obvious what the response should be.
Every day, Democrats should bring to the Senate floor a proposal for a three-month extension, and let the Republicans vote no. When Alito’s hearings start, Deomcrats on the Judiciary Committee should refuse to move ahead and halt the proceedings in order to deal with “security issues surrounding the Patriot Act”–and once again, let the Republicans move NOT to consider it.
Let them vote no on an extension over and over again. Then hammer them with it.
If that gets a little boring, then Reid can call the Senate into closed session again to discuss security and anti-terrorism.
It’s pretty simple, actually.
Author: Jonathan Zasloff
Jonathan Zasloff teaches Torts, Land Use, Environmental Law, Comparative Urban Planning Law, Legal History, and Public Policy Clinic - Land Use, the Environment and Local Government. He grew up and still lives in the San Fernando Valley, about which he remains immensely proud (to the mystification of his friends and colleagues). After graduating from Yale Law School, and while clerking for a federal appeals court judge in Boston, he decided to return to Los Angeles shortly after the January 1994 Northridge earthquake, reasoning that he would gladly risk tremors in order to avoid the average New England wind chill temperature of negative 55 degrees.
Professor Zasloff has a keen interest in world politics; he holds a PhD in the history of American foreign policy from Harvard and an M.Phil. in International Relations from Cambridge University. Much of his recent work concerns the influence of lawyers and legalism in US external relations, and has published articles on these subjects in the New York University Law Review and the Yale Law Journal. More generally, his recent interests focus on the response of public institutions to social problems, and the role of ideology in framing policy responses.
Professor Zasloff has long been active in state and local politics and policy. He recently co-authored an article discussing the relationship of Proposition 13 (California's landmark tax limitation initiative) and school finance reform, and served for several years as a senior policy advisor to the Speaker of California Assembly. His practice background reflects these interests: for two years, he represented welfare recipients attempting to obtain child care benefits and microbusinesses in low income areas. He then practiced for two more years at one of Los Angeles' leading public interest environmental and land use firms, challenging poorly planned development and working to expand the network of the city's urban park system. He currently serves as a member of the boards of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (a state agency charged with purchasing and protecting open space), the Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice (the leading legal service firm for low-income clients in east Los Angeles), and Friends of Israel's Environment. Professor Zasloff's other major activity consists in explaining the Triangle Offense to his very patient wife, Kathy.
View all posts by Jonathan Zasloff