The irony of the PCAOB constitutional challenge

We've covered the long-running constitutional challenge to the PCAOB, created by Sarbanes-Oxley, but we're still somewhat surprised by the news that the Supreme Court will hear the case. It's unclear how sweeping an "unconstitutional" decision would be. We've noted that a declaration that the board is not constitutional--that is it unduly impinges on Presidential authority--would not amount to a crisis of any sort. Congress could remedy the defect fairly easily.

But John Coffee, Columbia law professor and widely quoted pundit at the Washington Post notes that if Congress were forced to re-visit the legislation, it could end up in "a legislative free for all for interest groups, including those seeking to change other aspects of Sarbanes-Oxley."

There is some irony here. The plaintiffs were outraged, arguing the board usurped Presidential power. Back then, George W. Bush was the president. Is their outrage muted by the fact that a democrat now holds the job? They are essentially advocating for him to have more sway over the accounting universe, which is somewhat ironic. My view is that a politically independent body--not unlike the SROs--is the preferred route. 

For more:
- here's the Washington Post article

Related Articles:
A new U.S. accounting standards body?
Audit regulation changes to fall from Madoff scandal
Will the Supreme Court hear the PCAOB case?
PCAOB constitutional drama not over yet