The difference between Bush's & Obama's recess appts

Big Journalism:

 Despite Democrats’ previous outrage over recess appointments, Obama chose to ignore Congress and appoint Cordray while the Senate was in recess. 

Except–it wasn’t. The Senate used pro forma sessions to stay open–a tactic once used by Democrats to prevent some of President George W. Bush’s appointments. And why did Bush, that alleged tyrant of the “unitary executive,” fail to do what President Obama has just done? 

The answer–as even many liberals agree–is that it is unconstitutional, and in this case even unlawful, exceeding any power grab President Bush ever attempted.

The difference is the pro forma session. Republicans have had someone "in session" to keep the Senate from actually being considered "recessed." The Washington Times:

The third precedent involves Mr. Obama’s fellow Senate Democrats who, after taking control of the chamber, used pro forma sessions to stop Mr. Bush from making recess appointments in 2007 and 2008. 

“I had to keep the Senate in pro-forma sessions to block the [Steven G.] Bradbury appointment. That necessarily meant no recess appointments could be made,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said as he summed up the legal consensus in 2008. Mr. Obama was in the Senate at the time. 

Mr. Bradbury, an administration attorney, was nominated by Mr. Bush’s in 2005, to be an assistant attorney general, but never received a vote by the full Senate. 

On Wednesday, though, Mr. Reid reversed course and said he backed the president’s move. A spokesman didn’t respond to a request for comment on what changed in Mr. Reid’s thinking on the constitutional question.
Other Democrats who were also in the Senate in 2007 and 2008 cheered Mr. Obama’s appointments, saying the GOP’s obstruction had gone too far. Instead of the constitutional questions, they highlighted the work the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can do. 

Bush abided by the three day rule, while Obama has not.