Ruling is a huge embarassment for obama
The constitution allows for the president to make appointments without senate approval but only while the senate is in recess. The senate, which is controlled by democrats, wanted to go into recess back in Dec. of 2011 but the House of Representatives, which is controlled by republicans, wouldn't let them. So the senate showed up every three days without doing any work to meet the requirement of being in session. This is called pro forma session. When the senate is in pro forma session they are technically considered to be in session but they do very little work. But they have been considered to be in session. It was under president Bush when the senate was controlled by democrats that the senate began holding these pro forma sessions to prevent him from making these appointments. Then Senator Obama didn't have a problem with these sessions then.
This beyond rediculous Rueters news article reports that this will restrain future presidents. It seems to be suggesting that the supreme court ruling is changing something that has always been. The ruling will not contrain future presidents unless they attempt to do what only Barack Obama did, and try to appoint judges while the senate is in session. Again it was the democrats that started this pro forma session practice to prevent President Bush from making recess appointments. Don't think that Rueters is going to inform you of this.
'The chamber was gaveled in briefly every three days, apparently in an attempt to stymie recess appointments, and a Senate resolution said no business was to be conducted'. This was from Politico. That's wrong also. The Senate is controlled by dems. They were forced to staty in session by the republican controlled house.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/supreme-court-recess-appointments-108347.html#ixzz35y1ivBTt