Pro forma sessions are bollocks, though. Even the Bush administration stated that a recess appointment could still be made when there's only pro forma sessions. Besides, Obama has made much less recess appointments than Clinton, Reagan, or either Bush did, per year.
Now, if you want a legitimate criticism, apparently Dodd-Frank specifies that the appointee has no actual authority unless he's approved by the Senate, so it was nothing but useless politicking.
So, the Obama will decide decide when the Senate is in session? The Senate may assert it is session but you seem to believe that Obama can simply overrule them whenever he wants? Hmm.
Now you may believe that that invoking "bollocks" constitutes some type of argument, but its a pretty specious one (to put it mildly).
Or do you believe that by incanting "pro forma," then the Constitution doesn't apply?
Now, Bush II tried to assert pretty unlimited authority, BUT did NOT, repeat NOT, make any "recess" appointments while the Senate was in session. Oh, and Clinton, Bush I and Reagan did not make any "recess" appointments while the Senate was in session.
Next, Bush I served for four years, Bush II, Clinton and Reagan for eight years, so it is NOT surprising that they had more recess appointments than Obama. Now I understand that it seems like Obama has been afflicting the country for an eternity, but its actually been three years.
I ask you to be honest, if a Republican President tried to bypass a Democrat controlled Senate which was in session to make recess appointments, would you support such appointments as legitimate?
Finally, the call of the subject was on recess appointments in general. So, your comment on the lack of powers for Corday is, well, off topic, even though correct.