So the Senate was conducting business without a quorum?
You have already established the ability to quibble.
I don't make the Senate rules.
Neither do you.I didn't make it up.Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.
The SOLE legitimate question is "was the Senate in a self-professed pro forma session" or was it not? And the only honest answer is "yes," it was. Ergo, they were not in recess. Ergo, there could have been no valid recess appointment.
yet the Senate has yet to claim that the appointment was unconstitutional.
When they do, let us know.
The SENATE is not the only entity that can note the violation of the Constitution and the fact that what the President did was plainly unConstitutional does not require their agreement.
So, stuff your irrelevant rejoinder up your ignorant ass and try to stick to the actual issue.
DID this President sign a Bill passed by the Congress (including the Senate) during that pro forma session? Yes. Did he thereby unquestionably assert that the Senate was in session? Yes. Necessarily so.
Did the same President then purport to make recess appointments on the basis that the Senate had not confirmed nor denied his nominations while they were ALLEGEDLY in "recess" while at the SAME time acknowledging that they WERE still in pro forma session? Yes. Necessarily, he did.
He is a liar and you are applauding his duplicity and mendacity. The basis for your approval is simply partisan politics. You have no concern for the law or for principles.