Need Further Proof Who Really Controls This 'Democracy[?]' !!!!

"If things break down and nothing gets done, we and others will tell them, 'Enough is enough' ... 'Get things done or else you won't be back."'
Paul Miller-Business Lobbyist

Senate Battle Over Judges Concerns Business

Apr 8, 1:33 PM (ET)

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Paul Miller and other business lobbyists are worried that a battle over President Bush's judicial nominees may tie the Senate into knots, endangering legislation they want turned into law.

"We are alarmed," said Miller, a lobbyist on Capitol Hill since 1996 who has headed the 700-member American League of Lobbyists since January.

"If things break down and nothing gets done, we and others will tell them, 'Enough is enough' ... 'Get things done or else you won't be back."'

The business community helped Republicans expand their majorities in Congress in last year's elections and now wants them to pass a crush of legislation.

A major energy bill and transportation measure are on its wish list, along with a proposed trade agreement with Central American nations, tax relief and legislation to revamp medical malpractice laws.

Miller voices frustration with Democrats and Republicans, who blame each other for their high-stakes showdown over judges that may come to a head within weeks.

Republicans threaten to change the Senate rules to ban procedural hurdles known as filibusters that Democrats have used to block 10 of Bush's most controversial judicial nominees.

Democrats vow to retaliate to such a rule change by using other procedural tactics to stall action on legislation that they consider nonessential.

Overall, business, like congressional Republicans, would like more conservatives on the federal bench, figuring such jurists would make the courts more amenable to their positions on matters from labor to product liability.

Yet at least some are concerned that banning the filibuster -- denounced by critics as "the nuclear option" because of the damage it could do to Senate bipartisanship -- may prove to be too big a price to pay.

"Everybody who knows anything about this is concerned," said a member of a business trade group speaking on the condition he not be identified by name. "We'd hate to see Senate action come to a halt. Things need to get done."

'HOW UGLY DOES IT GET?'

Democrats promise to be selective in slowing down the Senate. Yet many fear the battle could paralyze the chamber.

"There's going to be a big fight. The only question is how ugly does it get," said Ethan Siegal of The Washington Exchange, which tracks Congress for institutional investors.

Republicans control the Senate, holding 55 of 100 seats. Sixty votes are needed to end a filibuster; 51 would be needed to change the rules to ban filibusters on judicial nominees.

At this point, key questions include: Can Democrats and Republicans somehow reach a compromise, and if not, can Republicans muster 51 votes to change the rules?

Several Senate Republicans have voiced concerns that a rule change could stop legislation and hurt them in a future Democratic-led Senate.

"We are all concerned, but we'll get the votes," vowed Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, saying Democrats cannot be allowed to continue to block the will of the majority.

Democrats argue that the filibuster must be preserved to maintain a check on the majority's power.

Bruce Josten, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said eliminating the filibuster "is only too big a price to pay" if Democrats "shut the place down."

"The next question is for how long? If it's for two days, it's not too big a price," Josten said. "If it's for weeks, it's a whole different deal."

Democrats vow "long-term" retaliation.

"If that happens, then you are in a game of chicken," Josten. "Neither side can afford to sit there and do nothing."