It is not a change from precedent. There has never been a precedent that allowed a president to wait until congress closed for the day and appoint a post. Congress has to not be in session in order for any appointments to be made. That simply was not the case in these situations and this courts ruling is completely consistent with the state of law at the time, at present and any point previous in our history.<quoted text>
The recent Court of Appeals decision is a change from precedent. Regardless of what they held, what President Obama did was in accordance with the state of the law at the time he did it.
But isn't this interesting? The POTUS took action and it was found to be unconstitutional by a court. No one had to shoot anyone or anything. Isn't that neat how that works?
As for this being resolved without gunfire, it very well could be necessary and needed had the court rejected the constitution and history.
Just saying unprecedented does not make it so.