Another point I'd like to make is this: this agreement is nothing more than a usurpation of powers and I think you are ignoring that part of this situation.
So you believe the Senate has a Central controlling Authority?!!!
I'm not sure who's power is being usurped here.
The President can still nominate anybody he wants. He can consult with the senate if he likes, or not.
The Senate still has the power to confirm or reject nominees. That vote is still a simple majority.
The Senate still gets to set its rules as the majority sees fit. A majority can decide that it won't vote to confirm a nominee unless 10 other Senators agree at least to allow the vote. The Filibuster is just a formalization of an informal arrangement whereby a Senator who might otherwise vote yes will vote NO if there aren't enough other senators. The Filibuster codified this.
Whatever the situation is now, it is identical rules-wise to what was in place yesterday, and a year ago, and 10 years ago. The agreement does nothing more than spell out what 14 senators plan to do regarding judges. Any one of them can change their mind at any time. They enter the agreement voluntarily.
The 14 get the illusion of more power, simply because by banding together they can vote in a block and influence outcomes. That of course is also what political parties do, and also what voting coalitions do all the time.
So I don't believe there is a usurpation of power. I believe the Senate would love to grab the Nomination power from the President. But all they can use to get that power is the threat of not providing the 51 votes for confirmation. The President can take that to the people if he has to.
The President already does consultation on district judges, and the Senate rules allow home-state senators to block judges in their own district. Often the states SEND LISTS OF CANDIDATES to the President for him to pick from. He doesn't have to, but he almost always does. It's always been that way.