Thursday's Supreme Court decision might mark a pivot point in the Obama presidency, and in presidential policies in general. The court's ruling was limited but made it clear that presidential appointments cannot be made without Senate approval except in very limited circumstances. The Constitution's allowance for "recess appointments" without Senatorial concurrence seem quaint in the 21st century's instantaneous communications and rapid travel. In 1789, Congress met for only a few months a year and was in recess for much of the year.
Recess appointments is only one issue that riles congressional Republicans. They also complain that the president has only selectively enforced laws and has even rewritten laws to suit his needs. The Affordable Care Act's provisions are just one example of how the president has ignored, omitted or altered provisions of laws passed by Congress.
Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner has announced that the House will sue the president for failing to carry out laws passed by Congress, which the Constitution requires him to do. The fact that this lawsuit will likely drag on through the 2016 elections is an indication that the case is based more on politics than on constitutional integrity.
The Constitution includes a remedy for a president who fails to do his job — impeachment. Failing to carry out the constitutional requirements of his office should qualify as a "high crimes and misdemeanors." The fact that only a few right-wing yahoos in Congress are proposing articles of impeachment indicates that Congress is not all that serious about retaining the powers granted by the Constitution and about demanding that the executive branch not usurp Congress' constitutional powers.
It is entirely possible, however, that private citizens might bring suit to overturn a presidential action, as in Thursday's decision. If the unanimous recess appointments decision is predictive, the Supreme Court might just undo what the president has done of his own accord.