I haven't read the decision Lilo, but the history of Article IV does lend itself somewhat to understanding the court's decision. I believe it was the Committee on Postponed Parts that composed the recess appointments provision of the Constitution. It was intended to allow the President the latitude to keep the federal government up and running when the Congress was not in session. That makes sense. Of course, it has evolved into a political maneuver which the Founding Fathers did not antiicpate that it would. Thus, I support the court's decision even if not the way it expressed it. The President should have waited.