Organizing For Action?

Adrian -- Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wants to rewrite the rules. He likely doesn't have the votes he needs to stop debate and hold a vote on Judge Neil Gorsuch, so this week, he's threatening to "go nuclear" -- a move that could change the way the Senate votes on Supreme Court nominees forever. It's a reckless tactic. And it would be invoked in support of a nominee for a seat that was stolen from President Obama's nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. Once again, they are threatening to change the rules in the middle of the game for partisan reasons. By moving forward with the nuclear option, Senator McConnell would be threatening to ruin the checks and balances that have protected the Supreme Court nomination process for decades. This week, senators will be moving forward with Judge Gorsuch's nomination, and we'll be putting the pressure on them to change the nominee, not the rules. Say you'll be a part of the push. It's critically important to our democracy that members of the Supreme Court are consensus picks that can, at the very least, reach the 60-vote threshold the Majority Leader needs to end debate. Anyone nominated for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court should be able to earn 60 votes. If Judge Gorsuch is too ideological to get those votes, then he is not the consensus candidate that Americans deserve. Your senator will be voting soon on whether or not to confirm Gorsuch to the high court. Join us this week in letting our senators know that we deserve better: Add your name Thanks, Saumya Narechania National Issues Campaign Manager Organizing for Action +++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Saumya: Let's go down the line on your points:  Mitch McConnell is not rewriting the rules.  Your Harry Reid re-wrote them in spite strong objections from some of your more intelligent Democrats. The change is actually more "democratic" than that requiring a "super majority" greater than 60% instead of greater than 50%. There is a design bias in a "super majority" that is far from "democratic." I agree with you that Judge Garland should have been put through the process as the Republicans could have had a field day finding witnesses to his being a bedwetter in childhood, caught peeping into the girls locker room in junior high school, visiting a prostitute while in high school, smoking pot in college and maybe crank up a couple hookers from over the years, and so on.  Remember Anita Hill after Nina Tottenberg rubber hosed her to remember Clarence Thomas saw a pubic hair on a Coke can?  Thank God for Attorney John Doggett, a fellow law student at Yale who gave testimony indicating the lady was in need of medical psychiatric intervention. None of this nonsense had anything to do with Justice Thomas and the law.  It was only designed to destroy the man.  Judge Garland should be glad he was not thrown into the mill Democrats made for him. "Organizing For Action" is now said to be owned-and-operated by ex-President Obama.  We find it curious that he is this concerned or involved in the choice of a Supreme Court Justice unless he is only out to make trouble. Adrian Vance