That would be futile. It was decided by the Senate during the Souter confirmation.
No, this is a debate over whether we have reached the point that an avowed, proven originalist jurist can win confirmation to this seat.
I am as sad as the many conservative jurists and political activists who argue the fight should be made. However I am not letting my feelings overtake my good sense.
BTW: it's not funny to see the liberals protected from being "Soutered" by a stealth nominee (which is what is going on- and the liberals know it) by conservatives!
That is what's happening, a 'reverse-Souter'.
The point I was trying to make was that there are two camps arguing, and a third camp watching from the wings. The two camps are within the GOP. One camps says "trust me, we'll knock liberalism back with this pick," and the other camps says, "not so fast." That intramural debate is happening on FR, and it is mighty heated. The GOP and WH are resisting the pressure from "conservatives" (shorthand, I guess, for anti-Miers types, and not meant as anything other than shorthand).
Meanwhile, the partisan GOP/DEM battlefront is quiet. The pro-Miers camps advocates advancing with stealthy ammuntion, a weapon whose power in the battele of ideas and ideals is unknown and untested. We'll get that weapn by the DEMs and Liberals, and they won't know what hit them!
I call BS on that approach, and I am not backing down.