The one they use ends after the Second Amendment

more than clearly enough:

It was a 9-0 decision against the President and established limits on the President's recess appointment power...

NLRB v. Noel Canning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Noel_Canning
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-labor-relations-board-v-noel-canning/

Despite what some commentators have been saying, the current "recess" is not long enough to trigger the recess clause as defined/clarified by the Supreme Court in NLRB v. Canning. A recess of less than 10 days is presumptively too short to trigger an exercise of the recess appointment power according to that decision. Measured from the first date that the Senate was not in session (the 13th) through the last date the Senate is not going to be in session (the 21st), the recess is only nine days (assuming no pro forma sessions are held in the interim). Moreover, as the Court acknowledged in Canning, in Senate parlance and practice, Sundays are not "days" for purposes of the adjournment clause, so the current recess actually is only 7 days.

I'm not sure why so many people are assuming that the Senate currently is in a recess long enough to trigger the recess appointment clause. The current recess is similar to others the Senate has taken from time to time, and Obama, despite having a large number of non-judicial and judicial nominations bottled up by the repubs in the Senate, hasn't attempted to use those recesses as the basis for any recess appointments.

Republicans treat the Constitution the same way they treat the Bible. They pick out the parts they like (and revere them as holy), and ignore the parts they don't.