Here is an excerpt from the article you posted:
"Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, said recently that the unanimous rulings against the administration represent a rejection of “the Obama Administration’s calls for greater federal executive power.”
Other than the case involving recess appointments, the decisions have had little to do with executive power.
The court’s decision last week in the Massachusetts case on protests at abortion clinics centered on a state law, not presidential actions, even though the government backed the law.
Republicans still cited the decision as a judicial rebuke of Mr. Obama, saying the president exceeded his constitutional authority.
“I think it’s tempting to take Speaker Boehner’s lawsuit and try to build on that and say there is an abuse of presidential power here, and even the Supreme Court thinks so. But I don’t think those claims are being borne out,” said Stephen Wermiel, a constitutional law professor at American University in Washington. “Some of the losses — it’s silly to attribute them to the administration.”"
Here are some other "facts"
"A spokeswoman for Goodlatte gave us a list of the 13 cases he referenced. We reviewed the evidence his office offered enlisted the help of a few experts to help us parse through the legalese.
Goodlatte’s assertion doesn’t seem to hold water. Susan Bloch, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, said the NLRB case is very different than the rest of the cases on the list, in that the court actually was ruling on a separations of power issue and a presidential overreach.
"That’s a fair case of the president’s use of executive authority getting rejected," she said.
But the rest of the claim? "It’s a total overstatement," Bloch said.
Why?
For starters, in eight of the cases, the alleged overreach occurred under President George W. Bush, as did the court cases that challenged the administration (United States vs. Jones, Sackett vs. EPA, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School vs. EEOC, Gabelli vs. SEC, Arkansas Fish & Game Commission v. United States, PPL Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Horne vs. USDA, and Bond vs. United States). Bush’s Justice Department handled the initial court proceedings in most instances.
Obama’s Justice Department in many of the cases handled the appellate process and ultimately defended the actions to the Supreme Court. But that’s commonplace, experts we spoke with said.
Goodlatte spokeswoman Jessica Collins contended that doesn't make the chairman's statement untrue. "Regardless of who started the policies that were overturned by the courts unanimously during the Obama administration, President Obama decided to continue those policies which were struck down," she said.
But that isn't really what Goodlatte claimed. He said Obama "exceeded his presidential authority," not that Obama defended executive overreach.
Additionally, in many of the cases, executive overreach wasn’t really even at issue. For example, in United States vs. Jones, the court was ruling on whether the FBI had the power to use a GPS to track a suspect and gather evidence.
Technically, the FBI is a federal department under the Justice Department, a department in the executive branch. But the court was not reeling in an administration that was abusing power. Rather, "it gave us some guidance about how new technology and the Fourth Amendment should interact," Bloch said. "It has nothing to do with presidential authority."
Another case on the list, Arizona vs. United States, surprised our experts. Why? Because many saw it as a partial victory for Obama.
This is the case surrounding Arizona’s tough immigration laws that many civil rights groups said amounted to racial profiling. In 2012, the Supreme Court released a complicated 5-3 ruling, in which the court actually sided with the Obama administration on three of four counts. On the fourth provision, which allowed Arizona authorities to check the immigration status of anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant, the court basically said it’s too soon to tell, and unanimously decided to send the issue down to the lower courts to monitor for further challenges."
I find it hilarious that over half of the court actions were brought against the Bush administration and completed litigation under President Obama's time in office. Laughable that you would attribute those alleged abuses of executive power to this President when his predecessor took the actions! Sort of like Cheney calling out President Obama for not being able to clean up the "mess" he and Georgie created in Iraq! You guys have no conscience and even less credibility let alone original thought.
.
. 
