

Supreme Court "seemed on the edge of overturning" Sarbanes-Oxley - gruseom
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121170889

======
iamelgringo
It's all pretty interesting that they are arguing for overturning Sarb-Ox
because of oversight issues. I don't really understand why they set up a
separate commission in the first place instead of bringing in that type of
oversight under the SEC.

Anyone have any insights?

~~~
hristov
This sounds like a result of the usual deal making and compromise in Congress.
Sarbanes Oxley was passed during the Bush admin when republicans were pretty
strong in Congress (don't remember whether there was complete republican
majority at that time). In any event, the republican line was that regulation
is always bad government is always bad (except for wars), and everybody can
self regulate. Also, for some reason, some conservative politicians really
hated the SEC and would never give it more responsibilities or funding. So
this seems like an attempt to have it both ways -- have a law and have self
regulation at the same time, by allowing a board of accountants to set up some
rules.

------
DanielBMarkham
There sure is a lot of editorializing in this piece. _..acknowledged that if
he's successful, business interests that have chafed at new regulations will
have a chance to rewrite the law..._ , _...Scalia, Roberts and Alito
pounced..._ , _...Justice Scalia, sarcastically..._

Hopefully this was to "jazz it up" a bit. Because it looks to me a bit like
the reporter finds SarBox to be goodness, those who question it partisan, and
the court something like a football match.

