As Scalia explained in a lengthy statement from the bench that followed Breyer’s summary of the Court’s decision, he and his three colleagues would have held that the president’s recess appointments power is substantially more limited than the Court ruled today.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/court-strikes-down-recess-appointments-in-plain-english/
This compromise, which voided Obama’s appointments but left the recess appointment power largely untouched, led Justice Antonin Scalia to write a concurring opinion that read like one of his blustery dissents. He thought the Court should have gone further, regardless of the long historical practice of inter-session recess appointments. There is no “adverse-possession theory of executive authority,†he wrote. Worse, perhaps, from his point of view, may have been the Court’s embrace of pragmatism instead of looking solely to “the plain, original meaning of the constitutional text.â€
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/symposium-noel-canning-and-the-hesitant-court/