Re:Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Sarbanes-Oxley
by zosi on Monday June 28, 2010 @12:52PM
(#1468504)
Actually, that's completely wrong.
As the law was prior to this decision, the SEC had to have good cause to remove someone from the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. The ruling was that requiring two levels of good cause between the President and the oversight board was unconstitutional, and now the SEC is able to remove oversight board members directly without requiring good cause. The logic is that this provides sufficient insulation from Presidential control, because the President still requires good cause to remove the SEC people who can remove oversight board members.
tl;dr: The SEC no longer requires good cause to remove oversight board members any more, and the President's power is essentially unchanged.
As the law was prior to this decision, the SEC had to have good cause to remove someone from the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. The ruling was that requiring two levels of good cause between the President and the oversight board was unconstitutional, and now the SEC is able to remove oversight board members directly without requiring good cause. The logic is that this provides sufficient insulation from Presidential control, because the President still requires good cause to remove the SEC people who can remove oversight board members.
tl;dr: The SEC no longer requires good cause to remove oversight board members any more, and the President's power is essentially unchanged.