Supreme Court fight: Quarter of Republican senators now back meetings for Merrick Garland
When President Obama first nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, Senate Republicans were united in their wall of opposition -- no meetings, no hearing, no vote.
And while Garland's path remains a very uphill battle, some Republicans are starting to shift their tone.
Two weeks into the nomination fight, 16 Republican senators now say they will meet with Garland -- over 25 percent of the GOP caucus -- according to a running count by NBC News.
That includes senators up for re-election in Blue States, such as New Hampshire's Kelly Ayotte and Illinois' Mark Kirk, who will be the first Republican to actually meet with Garland when they talk Tuesday.
The list also includes Republicans in Red States, such as Oklahoma, Alaska and Kansas.
See more from the announcement of Garland's nomination
"As a courtesy I would meet" with Garland, South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds, said earlier this month, while noting that he did still oppose the nomination.
Sen. Ron Johnson, currently campaigning for re-election in Wisconsin, said he had "no problem with meeting people." But given his opposition to Garland, he added, "I'm not sure what the point will be."
At least three GOP senators also back a hearing for Garland's nomination -- moderates like Illinois' Kirk and Maine's Susan Collins, plus Kansas' Senator Jerry Moran -- while most of their colleagues oppose both of those steps.
According to Garland's boosters and some GOP strategists, Republicans are abandoning opposition to meetings because it could make them appear obstructionist -- or even rude.
"Mitch McConell's knee-jerk response after Justice Scalia's death is a public relations debacle for the Republican Party," said former McCain strategist Steve Schmidt.
To defeat a presidential nomination, Schmidt suggested, it is usually better to "derail it slowly over time" -- not announce blanket opposition up front.
WATCH: Senator Reid slams GOP over refusal to meet with Garland:
The politics of process are also evident on the 2016 trail, where Marco Rubio and John Kasich have said their senate compatriots should meet with Garland.
"They ought to meet with him," John Kasich told NBC's "Meet the Press" two Sundays ago. "Show him that amount of respect."
Meetings with Garland, or even the prospect of televised hearings, which can build national interest in a nominee, are still a long ways from winning a majority on the Senate floor.
White House aides cast their current nomination strategy as a "game of inches." No one expects Republicans to swiftly reverse their general opposition - the idea is that a trickle of meetings will turn into a cascade, and pressure will build for hearings and eventually an up-or-down vote.
There is ample polling suggesting Americans view Garland positively and support the traditional process for his nomination, including hearings and a prompt vote.
It is not clear, however, that Republicans will feel pressure to go much beyond meetings. Views on the Supreme Court battle are highly polarized, and the Court is rarely a top issue for voters.
While Democrats are eager to press the issue on the campaign trail -- including a sharp speech Monday by Hillary Clinton, urging Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to "do his job" -- conservative activists are also pushing new litmus tests for opposing Obama's nominee.
After Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran said it would be better to reject Garland after an interview and hearing, conservative activists said that approach was "outrageous."
Some on the right even suggested a primary against Moran. He then tried to address the controversy, releasing a statement that cast any confirmation hearings as an opportunity for a "thorough investigation" to "expose" Garland and "disqualify him in the eyes of Kansans and Americans."