In response to:

Court to Obama Admin: Actually, Those Recess Appointments Were Unconstitutional

Sooner Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 2:41 PM
If I read this rightly, they are not only saying that NLRB appointments are unconstitutional as the Senate was in session, but that no recess appointment can be legaly made unless the office became vacant during the recess.
Sooner Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 2:55 PM
If so, then I would agree with RWM; this would curtail the often used (and, arguably, abused) power of the Executive office to make recess appointments. Otherwise, all any President need do is wait until the Senate is in recess and make all of their appointments without either advice or consent. Or, as was argued by this administration, the President could simply determine that the Senate was in recess at any time of thier chosing and make their appointments whenever they felt like it.
Michael3116 Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 2:51 PM
NLRB appoint was made as a recess appointment when the Senate wasn't in recess therefore no recess appointment could be made so the appointments are illegal and any decisions made by the appointees would be null and void since they were not legally in the positions from which they were acting. It's pretty straight forward if they couldn't legally issue regulations then those regulations they issued are revoked because they were issued illegally.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals today unanimously slapped down the controversial “recess” appointments President Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board way back in early January of 2012, in what the Associated Press rightly calls an “embarrassing setback.” Indeed, if the Supreme Court upholds the decision, it very well may nullify everything the board has done since the appointments, as it won’t have actually had the quorum of three members required to issue regulations. Ouch.

The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking...