<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Cato Constitution Day &#8212; Thurs. Sept. 16	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/09/cato-constitution-day-thurs-sept-16/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/09/cato-constitution-day-thurs-sept-16/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:43:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Hans Bader		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/09/cato-constitution-day-thurs-sept-16/comment-page-1/#comment-101173</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hans Bader]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:43:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=19248#comment-101173</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Sarbanes-Oxley left the agency it created, the PCAOB, uniquely unaccountable to oversight.

The legal defenses of the PCAOB were internally inconsistent, as I &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.openmarket.org/2008/08/22/court-uses-inconsistent-reasoning-to-reject-sarbanes-oxley-challenge/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;explain here&lt;/a&gt;.

The defense of the PCAOB was also based on false claims about how accountable the PCAOB really was to the SEC prior to the Supreme Court&#039;s decision giving the SEC the ability to fire PCAOB members at will, as I explain here&lt;/a&gt;.
See also Roberta Romano, Does the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Have a Future?, 26 Yale J. on Reg. 229, 243 &#038; n.53 (2009).

I discuss the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling in the Sarbanes-Oxley case, Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010), and its implications for the future, in my recent 2010 Cato Supreme Court Review article.  See  Hans Bader, Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB: Narrow Separation-of-Powers Ruling Illustrates That the Supreme Court Is Not ‘‘Pro-Business’’, 2009-2010 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cato.org/pubs/scr/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Cato Supreme Court Review&lt;/a&gt; 269, 287-288 (2010).]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sarbanes-Oxley left the agency it created, the PCAOB, uniquely unaccountable to oversight.</p>
<p>The legal defenses of the PCAOB were internally inconsistent, as I <a href="http://www.openmarket.org/2008/08/22/court-uses-inconsistent-reasoning-to-reject-sarbanes-oxley-challenge/" rel="nofollow">explain here</a>.</p>
<p>The defense of the PCAOB was also based on false claims about how accountable the PCAOB really was to the SEC prior to the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision giving the SEC the ability to fire PCAOB members at will, as I explain here.<br />
See also Roberta Romano, Does the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Have a Future?, 26 Yale J. on Reg. 229, 243 &amp; n.53 (2009).</p>
<p>I discuss the Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling in the Sarbanes-Oxley case, Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010), and its implications for the future, in my recent 2010 Cato Supreme Court Review article.  See  Hans Bader, Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB: Narrow Separation-of-Powers Ruling Illustrates That the Supreme Court Is Not ‘‘Pro-Business’’, 2009-2010 <a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/scr/" rel="nofollow">Cato Supreme Court Review</a> 269, 287-288 (2010).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: The Supreme Court and mutual funds @ Cato &#171; Truth on the Market		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/09/cato-constitution-day-thurs-sept-16/comment-page-1/#comment-100903</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Supreme Court and mutual funds @ Cato &#171; Truth on the Market]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 00:23:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=19248#comment-100903</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] my contribution on last term&#8217;s Jones v. Harris: Federal Misgovernance of Mutual Funds. See Walter Olson&#8217;s summary of the panel on the business cases. Here&#8217;s the abstract of my [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] my contribution on last term&#8217;s Jones v. Harris: Federal Misgovernance of Mutual Funds. See Walter Olson&#8217;s summary of the panel on the business cases. Here&#8217;s the abstract of my [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Rhonda		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/09/cato-constitution-day-thurs-sept-16/comment-page-1/#comment-100889</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rhonda]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:07:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=19248#comment-100889</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Free market? You must be kidding! The business community uses the government to gain advantages all the time. There&#039;s no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free market!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Free market? You must be kidding! The business community uses the government to gain advantages all the time. There&#8217;s no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free market!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Barry Leonardini		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2010/09/cato-constitution-day-thurs-sept-16/comment-page-1/#comment-100879</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barry Leonardini]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:31:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=19248#comment-100879</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[How can we have a relatively free market system in commerce and social transaction when the legal system overseeing commerce and social interaction is constructively a cartel? By definition the free market system and individual freedoms will become a holding or hostage to the attorneys who freelance represent the legal  monopoly.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How can we have a relatively free market system in commerce and social transaction when the legal system overseeing commerce and social interaction is constructively a cartel? By definition the free market system and individual freedoms will become a holding or hostage to the attorneys who freelance represent the legal  monopoly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
