The Schumer precedent mandates that it stay vacant till 2017 isn't a real thing and certainly never actually resulted in the rejection of any Supreme Court nominations.
Of course its a real thing. Mr. Schumer stated in 2007 that the Senate was done confirming Supreme Court nominations until January 2009.
You are referring to these comments:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5146.htmlFirst, Schumer was not advocating for a categorical rule that no president's nominees should ever be confirmed after the midterms. Schumer argued that Bush's nominees had been overly ideological, that they had "hoodwinked" the Senate in confirmation hearings, that the court was "dangerously out of balance," and that the Senate should therefore refuse to nominate any further Bush nominees "except in extraordinary circumstances." His complaint was with Bush's conduct specifically, not with the concept of lame duck presidents making judicial appointments.
Second, Schumer was stating his own personal opinion, not the opinion of the Senate Democratic caucus. Bush never made any Supreme Court nominations between January 2007 and January 2009, so there's no indication that Senate Democrats would have applied a blanket rule of obstruction. By definition, something that has never occurred cannot form the basis for a "precedent."
