Please, do elaborate.

My source is a close friend who I absolutely trust. I would not have written this if it were any of the examples you mentioned. I understand your doubts, and of course you're free to believe it or not, but I absolutely stand by everything said.

Jonathan, no one was blocking these nominees. They never had a chance! The two Dem appointments were nominated on December 15 and non-recess-appointed less than a month later, before they even had a chance to file the paperwork required of every nominee to federal office.

Of course the real issue here is the Constitution that the president is sworn to uphold and defend, but it's fairly clear that you're unconcerned with, you know, the law.

Wrong again. The case would be heard, the GOP would argue, among many other points, that they have standing for whatever reason, and they would likely lose on the grounds that they don't. If they decide not to sue because of that likely outcome, saying "the case won't be heard" is wrong. There won't be a case!

But I digress. You've drawn me into semantics - though I do take that as a tacit admission of the erroneousness of your original comment and its "Fox News" quips.

Pizzeria Paradiso in DuPont/Georgetown/Old Town. Awesome gourmet pizza and a world class beer selection.

I'd be interested to know which facts, exactly, you're disputing. Do you know?

Actually, you're working from a faulty premise. What Obama has done - making "recess" appointments when the Senate is demonstrably NOT in recess - has never been done before. Just FYI.

So you're upset that the GOP used a gimmicky pro forma session, but you're not upset that Obama used a gimmicky recess appointment to install federal officials? You should note that recess appointments were intended to be used in emergenies (real emergencies, not "waaaah Congress won't do what I tell it to" emergenies) when it could take three weeks for a legislator to return to the capital for a session of Congress. It was never meant as a way to circumvent the legislative branch. If you're upset that pro forma sessions are being abused, you had best also be upset that recess appointments are being abused as well.

And don't give me the "obstructionist" line. Two of the nominees to the NLRB were submitted to the Senate 2-3 weeks before Obama decided he'd waited long enough. The Senate committee handling the nominations didn't even have a chance to conduct routine background checks, to say nothing of a hearing or - heaven forbid - a vote. The GOP wasn't obstructing them - they never got the chance!

And let's not forget that the president's duty is not to do what he thinks is right, it is, first and foremost, to uphold and protect the Constitution. So if the president is implying that he only violated the Constitution because Congress wouldn't do what he wanted them to, then, sorry, but that makes him derelict in his duty to the country.

These non-recess recess appointments were blatantly in violation of the Constitution (see my reply to Jeff above), unlike pro forma sessions. If the latter are so bad, then maybe a constitutional amendment is necessary. But unless and until one passes, saying "they're not doing anything" or "it's just a gimmick" is irrelevant - it's legal, unlike Obama's unprecedented power grab.

Also, your statement that the GOP would take Obama to court if they thought they could win is plain false. In order to have standing to sue, one must be able to demonstrate tangible damages. The only parties that would be on a solid legal footing in a lawsuit would be the companies that must endure losses at the hands of a constitutionally errant NLRB. Hence, no one will likely have legal standing until the new NLRB issues its first rule and that rule goes into effect.

"Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting." -US Constitution, Article 1, Section 5

"The — the recess appointment power can work in — in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days." -Obama DOJ's Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal

So: Per the Constitution the House must vote if the Senate is to recess for more than three days. It did not. It is the Obama administration's own legal opinion that recess appointments cannot be made within three days of adjournment. Ergo, by this administration's - not Fox News's - standard, the appointments were illegal.