No. of Recommendations: 3
It was a unanimous decision - with Roberts, Thomas, and Alito wanting to go further and hold that the Clause didn't allow any recess appointments during the actual Session of the Senate, and applied only to vacancies that arose and were filled between the two Sessions. Many of the Justices have little respect for precedent that they have long disagreed with and did not author; but they're pretty unlikely to backtrack on positions they themselves have taken.
OK, but there’s a different route, I think. Here is Section 3, Article 2:
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
The President “may” and “on extraordinary occasions” - adjourn the Senate until a time he thinks “proper.” So he adjourns the Senate, in toto, installs every cabinet member as a recess appointment, and proclaims to his Supreme Court “OK, now I think it’s time to get the Senate back together.”
A literal reading of the Constitution allows him to do that. How would the (supposed) “originalists” contort themselves to say “Oh, well that’s OK, then.”?
