It’s a bit thin to ascribe any meaning to a vote against rehearing en banc, though. The default position is that rehearing en banc will be denied.
That’s the best they can make of the bad situation they’ve gotten themselves into.
What I think actually will happen is that after the election returns come in giving the Democrats the White House and Senate, the GOP will immediately declare that it’s too late for Obama to withdraw the nomination and try to hold a vote on it. 
OK, but Obama’s use of “evolve” as documented in that article covered a timeline of 16 years and concerned a major social issue that did, indeed, evolve in public acceptance over that period. If you go from “absolutely no way” to “yes” in a couple of months, it seems to be… something entirely different.
Of course we don’t know that the Republicans will do that, but as noted, they’re screwed either way, just as they are with Trump. Also, I forgot to mention in the other post that Trump is already calling for mass rioting if he doesn’t get the nomination, as if everyone needed to be reminded that Republicans are already mired in a totally no-win situation.
It was a vote in favor of rehearing en banc.
…he said, emptying another barrel of radioactive waste into the water supply…
In years gone past, perhaps. Today, no.
The trouble is, that Obama has been painted for 7 years as not merely wrong; not merely someone with a different way of governing; not someone from the “other side of the floor”.
The Republican establishment and media has painted Obama as EVIL. Not just wrong, but actively TRYING TO DESTROY AMERICA. Not just a political opponent, but THE LITERAL ANTICHRIST. And the base ate this up. They believed it. They did not see this as powerful rhetoric, but as the actual, factual truth.
Now… You cannot compromise with PURE EVIL. You don’t make a deal with the LITERAL ANTICHRIST.
The Republican establishment and media have painted themselves into a corner, where compromise is not possible at all anymore. And compromise is necessary to get anything done. So they can’t get anything done. (Which of course, they then blame on Obama)
We are too obnoxious to nominees, therefore we can’t consider this fine judge
Nope. The nomination would no doubt be withdrawn before the echoes of “…we are now calling the election for Hillary Clinton…” have fully dissipated.
I see. I thought the district court had struck down the ban and the original panel had reversed.
There’s still not much to that, though. Perhaps Garland approved of the result but not the reasoning.
I’m loving it. And with the primaries having gone the way they’ve gone, the Dems can ask the voters, “who do you want to select Scalia’s replacement, Obama, or Donald Trump?”
The heat is on.
“Captain, the Teaparti have threatened to destroy this ship if we cross the party line and attempt to retrieve our Senate candidates from the Trumpayashi Maru…”
It’s not definitive, but it does look like a duck. Based on the current fact pattern, I’d say Merrick is in favor of additional gun control as opposed to less. Being in the DC circuit, I’m not sure if more info will come out.
Well, he’s a (D) nominee. If anything, it would be surprising if he were not in favor of more gun control.
Yay, yet again another white guy.
Not sure if it was linked to already but SCOTUSblog did an in-depth review of Garland’s judicial career prior to the nomination.
I know they’re already over-represented, and correct me if I’m forgetting someone, but haven’t Obama’s last two nominees been women, and one of them Latina? Not sure this deserves a “yet again” if it is, in fact, the first white guy he’s nominated. And one who will probably never be confirmed at that.
Agreed, but I think the GOP could have spun it so it doesn’t look like a compromise at all, and so avoid a problem entirely. “We first suggested Judge Garland because we felt he was a solid candidate for the position; see Orrin Hatch’s comments on the matter. Left to his own devices, the President would have picked an activist judge and damaged the Supreme Court, like he’s been damaging everything else. Fortunately, we spoke up on behalf of the people and saved the country from another disaster.” Own the idea and present it as something the GOP created and that Obama stole to try to “play politics”; don’t allow Obama to get any credit for the nomination. I think you could get the GOP base to buy into such a narrative.
Of course, Hatch has now backpedaled and seems to have fallen in line with the other “we won’t confirm Obama nominees” senators, so that’s out the window.
If this is correct then I retract my prior post, which was premised on Garland being a moderate.
But I don’t know if this NYT assessment is correct. Orrin Hatch clearly doesn’t agree with it, and given his background and experience I would be more inclined to go with his judgment. But I could be wrong.
This. The Republicans need to basically suck it up and vote on the nomination…and, if they are smart, vote to confirm. They seriously misplayed this whole thing…again…and look really stupid…again. If they wait for the people to speak they are going to have either Trump sending forth his nomination or Hillary sending hers and from a much stronger hand than Obama has right now.
Hatch just got a pretty hard ride in his Fox interview. They played video of his previous endorsements of Garland. He’s sticking with his “not at this time” and hedged his bets with “maybe I haven’t study his[Garland’s] career for the past 19 years enough”. You see, it’s too political right now. Everything will be totally calm in 10 months.