[ColoradoTree]

To echo Yvonne, context is important here.  There is a real difference between (1) one Senator stating that he would urge his colleagues to vote no on a hypothetical nomination for a hypothetical vacancy if that nominee is an outspoken conservative "outside the mainstream" and (2) the leader of the Senate promising no action whatsoever on any nominee the President would select. 

Importantly, Schumer said that the Senate should not confirm a Bush nominee to a future vacancy unless that person proved they were in the mainstream.  He did not say that the nominee shouldn't be entitled to hearings (where the nominee would be able to demonstrate moderate credentials) or a vote.  He's saying that they shouldn't confirm another outspoken conservative.

Basically, Schumer is arguing that if there had been a future vacancy under President Bush and President Bush nominated someone deemed out of the mainstream, that he would urge his colleagues to vote no.  Seems to me that he's basically calling for what was done with Bork and Kennedy, i.e., using leverage to reject nominees deemed extreme until the President nominates a moderate.  Again, what should happen in divided government.  If you can't see a distinction between what Schumer said then and what McConnell et al. are saying now, then I can't help you. 

So, again, can anyone point me to an example where the Senate--not just one Senator, but someone with authority to speak for either the body itself (the Majority Leader) or Judiciary Committee (the Chairman)--said that it would refuse to consider any nominee? 

[ColoradoTree]

To echo Yvonne, context is important here.  There is a real difference between (1) one Senator stating that he would urge his colleagues to vote no on a hypothetical nomination for a hypothetical vacancy if that nominee is an outspoken conservative "outside the mainstream" and (2) the leader of the Senate promising no action whatsoever on any nominee the President would select. 

Importantly, Schumer said that the Senate should not confirm a Bush nominee to a future vacancy unless that person proved they were in the mainstream.  He did not say that the nominee shouldn't be entitled to hearings (where the nominee would be able to demonstrate moderate credentials) or a vote.  He's saying that they shouldn't confirm another outspoken conservative.

Basically, Schumer is arguing that if there had been a future vacancy under President Bush and President Bush nominated someone deemed out of the mainstream, that he would urge his colleagues to vote no.  Seems to me that he's basically calling for what was done with Bork and Kennedy, i.e., using leverage to reject nominees deemed extreme until the President nominates a moderate.  Again, what should happen in divided government.  If you can't see a distinction between what Schumer said then and what McConnell et al. are saying now, then I can't help you. 

So, again, can anyone point me to an example where the Senate--not just one Senator, but someone with authority to speak for either the body itself (the Majority Leader) or Judiciary Committee (the Chairman)--said that it would refuse to consider any nominee?