Sarbanes-Oxley Act--It's more interesting than it sounds, I swear

I don't know if anyone is following or even cares about the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed in 2002, but it's likely to become a major case for the Supreme Court soon.

A bit of background here would probably be useful:

Sarbanes-Oxley was passed in response to the Enron and Worldcom accounting scandals. Basically, the Act established a board that regulated and monitored accounting in big businesses, called the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). The PCAOB is a private board with only five members that exercises government power. The members are named by the Securities and Exchange Commission

Okay, now here's the problem: while the PCAOB is exercising government power, the President has no power to remove them from office or to veto their appointment.

If you don't think that's a problem, then frankly, you probably aren't the President. Okay, I'm kidding. But the constitutionality of the PCAOB is being challenged as we speak. The argument is that the board is violating the separation of powers set up in the Constitution. To people who oppose the group, the PCAOB is just the first of many new entities set up by Congress to splinter the power of the President and cripple his ability to run his agencies. They believe that it is undermining "the President's control over his subordinates."

On the other hand, some justices claim that the PCAOB's relationship with the President is entirely healthy and within the law, since the board is a private entity.

This is what we, in the Supreme Court world, like to call a BIG DEAL. It may not sound like much: just a bunch of people arguing over the Constitution. Again.

But this is the very structure of our government that is being argued here. The opposition has claimed that if this splintering becomes common, Congress could create another branch of government and undermine the President to the point of his own superfluity.

Basically, people are worried that the President will be out of a job if this keeps up.

Now, my questions to all you lovely blog readers are these:
Is the opposition's argument sound?
Do you agree with the opposition, or would you side with the Circuit Court, which ruled that the PCAOB was Constitutional?
And, if the opposition is right and the President will be undermined by this "new branch of government," is this a good thing or a bad thing? Should we take more power away from the President, or will that result in chaos and Congressional control of the nation? When this goes to the Supreme Court, what do you think the decision should be?

Let me know what you think, because I'm not completely certain myself.

Sources:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/test-of-sarbanes-oxley/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-oxley