[Mr. Lucky]

The Court distinguished between intra-session adjounments and The inter-session recess. By the Court's logic the appointments would have been void regardless of whether the House had consented to an adjounment.

[Political Junkie Too]

I understand that the court was distinguishing between lunch breaks and the annual recess between semesters of a two-year Congress (or the biannual break between Congresses).

Obama wants the argument to be about the holiday breaks. I'm arguing a point against Obama's argument.

Note that the news stories are only focusing on whether the Senate was in recess or not, as if that's the end of it. If the House was not in recess, the Senate could not constitutionally be in recess. That is what is needed to rebut Obama's small argument.

But I am glad that Landmark argued the Big Argument.

-PJ