Re the earlier post on The NLRB versus the D.C. Circuit:
It is rare that I fundamentally disagree with you, but in this case I must. I highly recommend you read the entire opinion by the DC Circuit in the Noel Canning v. NLRB case that is the subject of the WSJ piece. I concede that someday the tables will be turned and a Republican president will be in the same boat. Nonetheless, that doesn't excuse straying from the meaning of the plain English language of the Constitution. As the court notes in the decision, Congress and the president have many clearly constitutional ways of avoiding gridlock over appointments: officials terms may continue in office until their successors are confirmed as is the case in many agencies, a subordinate official may be made an acting head of department, in the NLRB case Congress could have eliminated the need for a three person quorum, and the president can always choose to nominate candidates who are broadly acceptable.
If the Supreme Court were to adopt the NLRB position, and it is conceivable that it might, it essentially eviscerates the advice and consent role of the Senate as the NLRB's position is that the Senate is in recess whenever the president says it is.
P.S. I would have posted this as a comment but the server I am on is blocking your site for some reason.
[Editor's note: Hmm, I wonder what server he is on that is blocking this site?]