What begun with tragedy at the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is now shaping to be one of the largest filibusters seen in recent times. Hoping to win over Republican senators, President Obama recently nominated Merrick B. Garland, a well-known moderate, as the potential 113^th Supreme Court Justice.

The nomination came as a surprise to liberals and conservatives alike, many of whom expected another racial minority nominee, or at the very least one more liberal than Garland. Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America (a progressive political action committee) stated it was “deeply disappointing that President Obama failed to use this opportunity to add the voice of another progressive woman of color to the Supreme Court, and instead put forward a nominee seemingly designed to appease intransigent Republicans.”

Judge Garland, Chief Justice of the DC Court of Appeals, has drawn support from both Democrats and Republicans, putting pressure on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to consider a nominee before Obama’s term is up. The president hoped to show how polarized the issue has become by picking someone as consensus-friendly as possible, but said strategy isn’t working.

In spite of the efforts to hamper his movement, senator McConnell declared that “The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration, the next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy.” The senator also called Garland in person to inform him that he would not be receiving him, nor taking any action towards his nomination process.

Such actions are unprecedented, though Senate Republicans are attempting to draw parallels to a speech given in 1992 by then-senator Joe Biden. Mitch McConnell invoked the “Biden Rule” in a speech on the floor of the Senate earlier this month, saying that “The Senate will continue to observe the Biden Rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision.” Unfortunately, this isn’t quite the complete truth. When Biden gave his speech in 1992 urging then-President George H. W. Bush to reconsider nominating a Justice before the general election, it was June, just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and only a few short weeks before the Republican convention. Furthermore, Biden actually suggested making a nominee during the actual lame duck period, right after the chaotic general election closed. The real kicker? There wasn’t a vacancy, he was discussing a hypothetical.

Despite the fact that the “Biden Rule” has been “invoked,” Republican senators are unlikely to follow it. The odds of a nominee receiving Senate approval even after the general election seem to hinge on 2^nd Amendment rights, in which case Garland has little hope of success. Though he has only ruled on two cases regarding 2^nd Amendment Rights, Chris W. Cox (executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action) slammed Garland, stating “Obama has already nominated two Supreme Court justices who oppose the right to own firearms, and there is absolutely no reason to think he has changed his approach this time.” In an interview with Fox News, McConnell was asked by host Chris Wallace if Senate Republicans would consider Garland after the general election. The Senate Majority Leader responded that he “can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association [sic] the National Federation of Independent Businesses.” Such a statement is alarming, given that the NRA and NFIB are unlikely to change their opinions any time soon.

With the current composition of the Senate (54 Republicans to 44 Democrats, and 2 left-leaning Independents,) the American people are unlikely to see a timely resolution. Though there is no rule against filibusters for Senate consideration of Supreme Court nominees, there is also nothing in the Constitution to support the notion of citizens having a say in who the nominee is. In order for cloture (a Congressional procedure for ending a debate and taking a vote,) 60 votes are currently required. That would translate to all of the Democrats and Independents in the Senate, as well as 14 Republicans (~26% of Senate Republicans.) Without a major change in Senate composition, it seems a long-shot at best. For the time being, Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans will more than likely get their way, marking one of the first times a Supreme Court vacancy will go unfilled for such a length of time.