Is today's rule change in anticipation of or in reaction to upcoming Supreme Court argument?

[morningfog]

2. The issue with the Supreme Court is a separation of powers question that turns on

what constitutes recess for the recess appointment clause.

The Court has a few ways to answer the question. If it holds that only intersession recesses count to trigger the recess appointment clause, then Congress could have the session end the second immediately before the next began. It could end the availability of recess appointments altogether. To a lesser degree the same would happen if the Court holds that the only vacancies that trigger the clause are those that occur during an intersession recess.

If it holds that intrasession recesses count, it will have to decide the length of recess that triggers the clause. If they say the three days in pro forma sessions is either not long enough or don't count as recesses, again the President would be blocked from making appointments.

If the Court rules one of those, or a combination of, those ways, the President's recess appointment power will be dead.

With those possibilities, it has forced Reid to help Obama get these appointments through without using the recess at all.