Recessing with the Times

Today the Supreme Court unanimously rebuked the president for doing something unconstitutional.   Here's CNN:

The Supreme Court sided with Congress on Thursday in the high-stakes power struggle over presidential recess appointments, in which officials are placed in top government jobs temporarily without Senate approval.

But what about America's paper of record, the New York Times?  Well, their report leaves the impression that the ruling was about recess appointments in general, leaving that little thing about Obama's non-recess appointments as an afterthought.  Even the headline tries to frame the decision as limiting recess appointments, when in fact the screaming headline should have been about the high court smacking the executive branch for overstepping their powers.  Even imperial president Bushitler wouldn't go there.  And there was nothing in the story about the impact of this "unlikely ruling", such as the invalidation of past decisions.

Actually Liptak should be given an award for that piece, presented by George Lucas.  One can almost imagine the editorial meeting about how they were going to frame such an in-your-face decision--especially just as Boehner has announced the desire to file a lawsuit over presidential powers--resulting in his column. Perhaps one day media historians will look back on the coverage given the 44th president of the United States and gasp.  Unless such a thing is outlawed by then.