This has got to hurt. As well as, objectively, be embarrassing.
Back in 2004, the Ninth Circuit hears an immigration appeal. Judge O'Scannlain joins the majority opinion, written by Judge Siler (a senior judge on the Sixth Circuit), which denies relief. Judge Hawkins dissents.
Then the case gets taken en banc. The resulting panel's more leftie than rightie (typical of contemporary Ninth Circuit en bancs), but has its fair share of conservatives, including the two Bush I appointees (Judges Rymer & Kleinfeld) and a Bush II (Judge Callahan), as well as some pretty moderate Democrats.
So how does the en banc come out? Unanimously in favor of the petitioner. Not a single vote on O'Scannlain's side. Unanimous. Again: Votes on O'Scannlain's side? Zero. Votes on the other side? Eleven.
Ouchie.
