Noel Canning Oral Argument: Justices Express Skepticism

My experience is that oral arguments, while often interesting, rarely open much of a window into exactly how a court will actually decide the case.  Today's Supreme Court argument in NLRB v. Noel Canning may be an exception.  Nearly all of the Justices had questions which suggested skepticism over the validity of the President's January 4, 2012 recess appointments to the NLRB.

The skepticism seems to be rooted in two principal concerns, which are not necessarily shared by each Justice.  First, the plain wording of the Constitution's Recess Appointment Clause simply mandates affirmance of the D.C. Circuit's decision.  Second, disagreements over appointees are consigned by the Constitution to the political process, which includes the Senate's ability to prevent recess appointments by limiting or eliminating recesses.