Arguments were made before the U.S. Supreme Court today in the case of President Obama's unconstitutional "recess" appointments to the NLRB and other bodies. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals had found that Obama's arrogating to himself to decide when the Senate is in session, was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.
Both Fox News and the New York Times could agree that the Justices were "quite skeptical" of the arguments on behalf of Obama made by Solicitor General Donald Verilli. The key comment may have been made by Justice (and former White House Counsel for Obama) Elena Kagan, who told Verrilli that "congressional intransigence" to Obama nominees is not be enough to allow him to arrogate their power. Kagan, told Verrill "it is the Senate's role to determine whether they're in recess."
In the case at issue and in other cases, Obama had taken it on himself to decide, when the Senate was in a "pro forma session", that it was actually in recess in his view, allowing him to make a nomination not subject to Senate confirmation.
Thinking of the Constitution: The Global Research points out under 'Will Obama Be Impeached for Surveillance?' "One of the crimes against the Constitution for which the House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach Nixon in 1974 was: `The electronic surveillance of private citizens ... subversive of constitutional government'."